ge ahateastsastoiesents 
magi esses: estates: 


enersts, 


eee fteore 
rpoestiisiestanstnaeeece east 
Be 7‘ Facets 


or riers . - ~ : 
Sriinareesteceret : 


: : Spoporese pes 
n breve 
Feses 


ict 
Geren ie 
aieees : Sete sey cists : : ; : j ; : 
ere jon n - 5 “ ye re ~ ee 
serteass Pretrtetiseoret : t : : ; Strasse : ritetnwaaritieyeoet 
: : 3 Selated we 
rss : 


at 


iF 
a4 


; : ry sbersssh ct - 

: - ropenerecet eye ets oly 

ar : _ yen el ierersteteee! 

perereteysits sarees} - rita: f ee 


seacors erat re rorere 4 
ayes Sbicssiee Sains fachcerara Sates tigertie 
Sdethdec ti hese era iad anteasts 
Sore, 


re : 
i sities : 
eats : estrone eet ererai= ; ; 1: - sGarcrerete 
stesrers : siren : Lrttestrarastenie sta 

; eiestateasie : eter ayuee 
re a 1 ere 
: ai eleres : r 
spekieeal pipers a 
ay cettas 


Z siraancen) 
ap tire 
- Poa 
sta ee < 
hes oe Ahab - x} - peta sy eee. =f 
pesstetsior are : : oa a at 
4 zs 
ts 
apes 


faces sent te 
tyr 


Preis ¥ 

bso eres! prcaeee : ete 

eet oebpe eistesto yore Ercthinnsod gansnss 
Sopeieeel 


Rivferascts : : eabebsethsishe se sates 

abeagnsins; : re re 

ye > ¥ pisshpbebenericts r 
rials rte ea 


Seg ee cot 





GRRARY OF PRINCE TS 





Be 2290-45 2926 
Kilker, Adrian Jerome, 1901 
Extreme unction 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/extremeunctionOOkilk 





S D 
NOV23 1926 | 
A a 
4 — 


ae As 
SLocie,, sew 


EXTREME UNCTION 


A DISSERTATION 


Submitted to the Faculty of Canon Law of the 
Catholic University of America m partial 
fulfillment of the requirements for 
the Degree of Doctor of 
Canon Law 


By the 


REV. ADRIAN JEROME KILKER, J.C. L. 
Of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia 


WASHINGTON, D. ©. 
1926 


Nihil Obstat: 
THOMAS J. SHAHAN, 8. T. D., 


Censor Deputatus. 
Washingtonii, D. C., die XVII Maii, 1926. 


Imprimatur: 
*D. Carp. DouGHERTY, 


Archiepiscopus Philadelphiensis. 
Philadelphiae, die XXVII Maii, 1926. 


COPYRIGHT, 1926 
ADRIAN J. KILKER 


CHAPTER I. 


CHAPTER 


CHAPTER 


CHAPTER 


CHAPTER 


CHAPTER 
CHAPTER 
CHAPTER 
CHAPTER 
CHAPTER 
CHAPTER 


CHAPTER 


it: 
Trt. 


IV. 
V. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


A Dogmatico-Historical Introduction............... 
ee Tae NAING ais’ Gee side «e's «2:0 ele erera's s; 0's o s.alausre§ 
LU Dhet Sacramentalityan «acces co cap «eres cose nip re vant 
AVA Senses LAE oe a lalcte.s eicteth oe a el cio) te jel oie wore Rete sme gehts 
TWP Des SSONCO i «iris ese ic © oie se crys cjelsieia. of saewiene eared 
1. The Matter of Extreme Unction.......... 

2 Pune Pormiot Extremes Unctons. 2.47. 2.6. 5 

ame Deter FoI eCth. “cnt erates pis estelere coe s e's Sispace a Shea e's 
Lee PHGRRCMISSION OL * SINS... crawls cle atete a 

2. The Remission of Temporal Punishment... 

a. fbhe **Confortatto Animae’ 7... 0. cccee vee 
Amhestitution of’ Bodily, Health.22- <2... . 

Diet OG) Principals IrOchie . ters’ Wales Sicie ss \she'e'e » 

Vlewe Oe tAEO DELUIOS si .t0itc ate Gials sderese) hate wikis cute eyelets 01a 
i. The Unity of Extreme Unction. . 02.0... 6% 

ee LUAVIVISCODCOMN stale sracis eleva ete tes oleic sieterg « ciete.s 
SELECT CL DLL Vipapete tale che cleCels o sue ola te tehetore| o acciietieln 


The Elements of Extreme Unction (Canon 937) 


The Minister of Extreme Unction (Canon 938) 
I. The Valid Minister (Canon 938, 1) 
If. The Licit Minister (Canon 938, 2) 


The Obligation of the Minister (Canon 939) 


coeoev ev eevee 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration and 
Merve petIiots (CanGne G4 iu at aes «ses ciated eek ass 
I. Requisites for Administration (Canon 940, 1).. 
II. Requisites for Repetition (Canon 940, 2) 


Conditional Administration (Canon 941) 


Denial to Impenitents (Canon 942) 


eee ete eo eo eee wo Howe wR eRe 


Administration to the Unconscious (Canon 945).... 


Obligation upon the Subject (Canon 944) 


eesoer ev eevee 


The Blessing of the Oil (Canon 945) 


C10 OLS OLS: 6 '@ (0: 0. B86) 616, 


The Reservation of the Oil (Canon 946) 


oreo eee eee eee 


The Rite of Administration (Canon 947)........... 
I. The Mode of Administration (Canon 947, 1).. 
Petes OrdiniarvevMOde scars caniu re Sie cass tales 

2. Mode of Anointing in Case of Necessity... 

II. The Unction of the Reins (Canon 947, 2) 
Tif, The Unction of the Feet (Canon 947, 3)..:.... 
IV. The Use of an Instrument (Canon 947, 4) 


oe eee ee 


Foe Be Ce) 81088) 66.8 OO Ole © 6108 6 61618. © 6 ¢ oe" Ds O10 oe). 6 ee @ 6 O 6 6 Oe. 6 0 2 CO 6 6. 9-8: 'O 


@ 


7 “y a 
ee wer rh: 


é 


a 





FOREWORD 


The bestowal of Extreme Uncetion is one of the paramount 
features of a priest’s career. The time of its administration 1s 
fraught with significance. Given, as it always is, when the 
patient is in danger of death from sickness, it is a momentous 
event, a crisis in the life of the recipient. 

It is well then that a priest should be thoroughly cognizant 
of the laws of the Church which regulate the administration of 
this ereat gift of a munificent God. Only thru a thorough 
realization of their terms can he hope to discharge an intelli- 
gent ministry. 

The promulgation of the Code has given us very succinctly 
the norm of action for the exercise of this phase of sacerdotal 
duty. Within eleven canons are summed up the directions which 
should rule the activities of priests in administering the oil of 
the unction to sick souls. No radical changes of legislation have 
been made from the old law, but there are some alterations of 
primary importance. Yet no book, at least in English, has un- 
dertaken the consideration ex professo of this sacrament from 
a juridical standpoint. For this reason alone, a work on the 
subject does not seem untimely. 


Deep and weighty problems lie beneath the simple ter- 
minolozy of the canons. The intertwining of theological sub- 
jects makes an escape from this impossible. Canonical problems 
extend their ramifications into dogma, history and liturgy. They 
are indeed manifold and perplexing, but their mastery con- 
notes a deeper understanding of the law. Hence they have a 
great interest for the jurist. 

As a consequence the various theological, historical and 
liturgical problems have been investigated. No exhaustive treat- 
ment of them has been attempted, but in every case they have 
been noted and a summary survey presented. 

The writer cannot let the opportunity pass without express- 
ing his thanks to the Faculty of Canon Law of the Catholic 
University for their many practical suggestions to him in the 
preparation of this work. 





CHAPTER IL. 


A DOGMATICO- HISTORICAL 
INTRODUCTION 





CHAPTER I. 


There are few laws of the Church that have not a founda- 
tion in dogma. No matter how purely disciplinary they seem, 
they can generally be found to have their support from some 
dogmatic substratum. 

Sacramental legislation is essentially of this kind. There, 
if anywhere, the commentator must understand the fundamen- 
tal tenets involved, lest by injudicious daring he trespass beyond 
the limits that revelation, has defined. 

For this purpose he must be conversant with the practices 
of preceding centuries. In matters sacramental, history goes 
far toward a proper conception of dogma. It is a useful cor- 
rective that saves the judgment from a priori conclusions that 
are often fatally erroneous. Dogma is applied practically thru 
laws; and these too have a history of their own. Born of the 
exigencies of time and place, they give us an insight into the 
viewpoint of their day. They have changed often, yet dogma 
remains the same. Thus the dogmatic foundation allows great 
scope in the choice of material for the superstructure of law 
to be erected upon it. But if the wrong material is used, if the 
legal edifice projects beyond the boundaries of the foundation, 
the structure thus built will topple and tumble and crash of 
its own inherent weakness. 

Accordingly in treating with Extreme Unction, it is not 
only advisable, but positively imperative, to take a short excur- 
sion into the realms of dogma and of history. Such a sally, by 
refreshing our minds with thoughts theological, will furnish 
the correct setting of stage, will produce the proper perspective 
for a consideration of the canonical legislation on the subject. 
Thereby the terminology of the canons will assume a deeper, 
fuller meaning. Thereby interpretation of them will be clari- 
fied, facilitated. 

Who, for instance, understands thoroughly the force of 
the word ‘‘infirmitatem’’ in Canon 940, except he who realizes 
the power of dofevet in the text of St. James? The suffi- 


[3] 


4 Extreme Unction 


ciency of a single unction, the prohibition of iteration, and 
numerous other points, are almost unexplainable without the 
light of their dogmatic and historical background. 

Hence the reader is led, in preparation for the canonical 
treatment of the subject, in a somewhat hasty fashion thru the 
territories of dogma and history—to dally for a moment here 
and there at points of paramount interest, but on the whole, 
to gain only fleeting glimpses of provinces traversed before. 


I. Toe NAME 


This sacrament received in the course of the centuries 
many titles. The Greeks and the Latins, though one in dog- 
matic belief, were widely dissentient when it came to naming 
this channel of grace. Even within each rite it was given & 
host of names, by reason of its various effects, or of the multiple 
ritualistic differences of administration, or of its remote and 
proximate matter. Thus in the Latin Church it was desig- 
nated as: ‘‘sanctum oleum infirmorum,’’ ‘‘unctio sacrati olei,’’ 
‘sacra olei unctio,’’ ‘‘sacra unctio Dei,’’ ‘‘unctio infirmorum,’’ 
‘(unctionis officium,’’ ete. In Milan at the time of St. Ambrose 
it was known as ‘‘the imposition of hands upon the infirm.’” 
Innocent I in his epistle to Decentius? called it ‘‘chrisma.’’ The 
second Council of Aachen? spoke of it as ‘‘oleum sanctifica- 
tum;’’ while the Council of Trent* termed it the ‘‘sacramentum 
exeuntium.”’ 

Equally as numerous is the array of names given by the 
Greeks to this sacrament. The most common name is edyé\atovs® 
(i. e. oil of prayers). Goar in his Euchologion® recounts other 
names, such as éA\alovu xpiois, xptoua, xpioua dt édalov, 
nxabrépwots di édalou, 

Benedict XIV in his encyclieal ‘‘Ez quo’’ (March 1, 1756)? 
witnesses to the fact that the Greeks occasionally called this 


1 Magistretti, Manuale Ambrosianum, pp. 74 sqq., 94 sqq. 
Denziger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 99; M. P. L., 20, 559B; Mansi, II, 
1030-31; C.L.C. Fontes, n. 19. 
8 Cap. II, ‘‘De Vita Inf. Ord.,’’ can. dS—Harduin IV, 1397A. 
4 Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct., cap. 3. 
5 
6 


ho 


Goar, Euchologion, p. 346, n. 42; p. 349, n. 1. 

Goar, op. cit., p. 349; ef. Ralli, Tepl ray puornpiwv THs peravoias 
xal TOU evxEdaLov, p. 110. 

C. I. C. Fontes, n. 438, paragr. 40. 


" 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 5 


sacrament of the sick ‘‘Heptapapadum,”’’ i. e., the office of seven 
priests. Thus in 1277 at the Synod of Constantinople the patri- 
arch, John Veeco, in his acceptance of the confession of faith 
of the Council of Lyons, wrote to John XX: ‘‘Extremam Unc- 
tionem etiam ipsam recipimus similiter cum aliis sacramentis, 
quae a nobis celebrata, ‘Heptapapadum’ nominatur.’’® 


The present name of ‘‘Extreme Unction’’ has been in gen- 
eral use since the twelfth century. As far back as the ninth 
there are evidences of its employment. The virgin Maura, who 
lived at that time, asked Prudentius, the Bishop of Troyes, to 
administer to her the sacrament of ‘‘Extreme Unction.’’® The 
term became hallowed by the constant use of the Scholastics. 
Peter Lombard, for instance, titles the twenty-third distinec- 
tion of the fourth Book of Sentences ‘‘De Sacramento Extremae 
Unctionis.’’2° In like manner a rubric of the Decretals of Greg- 
ory IX reads: ‘‘ Alex. I1I—Solus Sacerdos potest sacramentum 
unctioms extremae infirmo conferre.’’1! Its official enshrine- 
ment in the declarations and canons of the Council of Trent? 
ensured its permanency as the name of this sacrament. 


The reason for the name, ‘‘Extreme Unction,’’ has ever 
been an unsettled question. Estius!® ascribes it to the fact that 
it is the last in point of time of all the unctions of the several 
sacramental rites. The first is that given to catechumens before 
Baptism. The second follows close on the heels of the actual 
baptismal ablution. The bishop performs the third at Confir- 
mation. Priestly hands are hallowed with a fourth unction 
in ordination. A fifth, though not sacramental, unction is given 
to secular princes.'4 The sixth—and the last, because no other 
follows it—is that of our sacrament. Other theologians, like 
Kern, say that the sacrament has its name, not because it is 
the last unction, but because it is administered only to those 
‘sn extremis.’’ It is the ‘‘sacramentum exeuntium,’’ as Trent 


8 Harduin, VII, 758B. 

9 M. P. L., 115, 1374C. 

10 M. P. L., 192, 899. 

11 c, 14, X, de verb. signif., V, 40. 

12 Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct., c. 3. 

13 In Quattuor Lib. Sent. Comm., ad dist. xxiii libri quarti, n. 1—tom. IV, 
p. 285; cf. also Catalano, Rit. Rom., tom. I, p. 300. 

14 Pontificale Romanum, Pars I, ‘‘ De Benedictione et Coronatione Regss.’’ 


6 Extreme Unction 


aptly calls it. This certainly seems to be the viewpoint of most 
of the faithful—with the result that they defer too often the 
sacred unction until the patient is beyond the pale of recovery.'® 
Chardon complains bitterly of the unfortunate suggestiveness 
of the name: ‘‘Ce sacrament n’a pas toujours porté le nom 
d’Extréme Onction. Ce nom lui est venu de l’abus qui s’est 
introduit, et qui n’est que trop commun depuis quelque temps, 
d’attendre a l’extrémité pour le recevoir.’’!® 


Il. THe SACRAMENTALITY 


The first question of dogmatic import in regard to Extreme 
Unction is that of its sacramentality. To Catholics ordinarily 
the mere statement of the Church is sufficient; but to the can- 
onist, who is to look at the sacramental canons from every focus, 
a rather searching treatment of the proofs is most desirable. 
The very Scriptural texts on which the proof rests determine 
to an appreciable degree the wording of the canonical legisla- 
tion. Consequently there is no irrelevancy in a consideration 
of the question, for it will save burdening the canons’ exegesis 
with many cumbersome explanations. 


It is a matter of Catholic belief, of course, that Extreme 
Unetion is a sacrament. The Council of Trent! decided that 
authoritatively by fulminating an anathema against those deny- 
ing this truth. In the century preceding, Eugene IV, in his 
instructions to the Armenians,? had mentioned it among the 
seven sacraments. These were not the first official documents 
on the subject. As far back as 1208 the belief of the Walden- 
sians on this matter was questioned by the Pope.? The pro- 
fession of faith subscribed to by Michael Paleologus in the 
Couneil of Lyons* enumerated it among the sacraments. Sus- 
picion of contemning Extreme Unction rested on the Wicliffites 


15 Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 3. 
16 Migne, Theol. Cursus Compl., vol. XX, col. 747. 


1 Sess. XIV, de Ext. Unct., c. 1. 

2 Const. ‘‘Hxultate Deo,’’ 22 Nov. 1439, paragr. 14—C. I. C. Fontes, n. 
52; Denziger-Bannwart, Enchirsdion, n. 700. 

3 Innocent III, ep. ‘‘Hjus exemplo,’’ Dec. 18, 1208—C. I. C. Fontes, 
n. 30. 

4 Anno 1274—C. I. C. Fontes, n. 35; Denziger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, 
n. 465. 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 7 


and Hussites to such an extent that Martin V ordered a special 
investigation into their dogmatic beliefs on the subject.® 

The batteries of Trent were levelled chiefly against the 
so-called reformers. Luther® with much pretense of erudition 
had denied the sacramentality of the sacred Unction. With 
impious impudence Calvin declared it to be ‘‘histrionic hypo- 
erisy,’’’ asserting that it has been passé since the cessation of 
charismatic healing. Previous to these reformers there was no 
definite heresy regarding Extreme Unction. The Albigensians 
may be said to have rejected it in their principles, and the Wal- 
densians actually did denounce it as the ‘‘ultima superbia’’— 
but no direct dogmatic denial is recorded before Luther’s day.® 


A) Proof from Scripture 

The bulwark of the Catholic argument is one very con- 
clusive Scriptural text—James, V, 14. Protestant theologians 
pretend to be astounded that the Catholic Church can exegete 
from the words of St. James the sacrament of Extreme Unction. 
On the other hand Catholics are equally amazed at the vagaries 
they in turn are guilty of, in a frantic effort to escape the real 
meaning of the text. They are unanimous only in the rejection 
of the Catholic interpretation. There is no accord as to what 
meaning should be substituted—‘‘quot capita tot sententiae.’’ 
They attack the text at every point. They dispute about the 
author of this rite, about its duration, about its ministers, about 
the subject, about the matter, about the ‘‘prayer of faith,’’ 
about the end and effects. Small wonder that Catholics are 
stupefied that such unanimity in the rejection of revealed truth 
ean be coupled with such diversity in asserting error. 

The Council of Trent lays specific stress on the Jacobean 
text. Hear its own words: ‘‘Now, this sacred unction of the 
sick was instituted by Christ our Lord, as truly and properly a 
sacrament of the new law, insinuated indeed in Mark, but rec- 
ommended and promulgated to the faithful by James the 


5 Const. ‘‘ Inter Cunctas,’’ 22 Feb. 1418—C. I. C. Fontes, n. 43; Denziger- 
Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 669. 

6 De Captwitate Babylonica, cap. ‘‘de Ext. Unct.’’ 

Pyinst, LV, xix, <18, 

8 Cf. De Sainte-Beuve, De Ext. Unct., disp. I, art. II, in Migne, Curs. 
Theol. Comp., vol. xxiv, 10, sqq.; Bellarmine, De Sao. Ext. Unct., 
Liber unicus, ce. I. 


8 Extreme Unction 


Apostle and brother of the Lord. ‘Is any man,’ he saith, ‘sick 
among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and 
let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of 
the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and 
the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be 
forgiven him.’ In which words, as the Church has learned 
from apostolic tradition, received from hand to hand, he 
teaches the matter, the form, the proper minister, and the 
effect of this salutary sacrament.’’® Thus the Council infallibly 
instructs us of the sacramental nature of the Jacobean prayer- 
unction and gives us incidentally the correct exegesis of the 
Jacobean text. 

An analysis of this text of St. James will convince one of 
the potency of this proposition. In verse 13 of the fifth chapter 
of his Epistle St. James wrote: ‘‘Is any of you sad? Let him 
pray. Is he cheerful of mind? Let him sing.’’ Prayer is 
thus prescribed as a general remedy against every afiliction. 
But to persons in a special state of affliction, the apostle proposes 
the use of a special prayer. Thus he continues: ’Ac@evet tis év 
tutlws mpooxarhecacbw tors mpeg Burépous THs exxAnolas, xal 
rposevtdabacay éx’ avrov ddelWavres EXGlW EV TH OVOUETL 
xuptov, Kat » ebx} THs TioTews gwoer TOV XaMVOYTH, xTL 
évepet avrov dxvplos: xay duaptlas 7 TETOLNWS, asebaneran avrTa, 

The opposition of the words dodevet and xdauvorra 
to the word used in verse 13—xaxorabei—brings into promi- 
nence the notion that not any one sick is meant here, but only 
those who are truly ‘‘aegroti.’’ The hesitancy of Protestant 
exegetes!® to extend the meaning of this word to all sick lends 
much presumption to the truth of the Catholic interpretation. 
The correct meaning of this word is of paramount importance 
in determining the true subject of this sacrament, and thus 
explaining the force of the term ‘‘infirmitatem’’ in Canon 940. 
An inspection of its full significance now will save retracing 
our steps when treating the canon just mentioned. 

Cornelius a Lapide comments: ‘‘Quod ait ‘infirmatur,’ in- 
tellige graviter et periculose ad mortem; hic enim dodevet, 


9 Sess. XIV, De Eztr. Unct., cap. I—Translation by Waterworth, Canons 
and Decrees of the Council of Trent, p. 105. 

10 Cf. eg., See Epistle of St. James (International Critical Commen- 
tary), 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 9 


i. e., viribus et robore plane destituitur, quem proinde mox 
voeat TOY xdmvovTa, i. e., periculose laborantem.’’!4 Suarez 
also notes: ‘‘Verbum xdpvovra deficientem et pene morien- 
tem significat.’2 By a comparison with other verses in Serip- 
ture, it will be found that the restriction of the meaning of 
aobeverto those alone who are seriously sick is undoubtedly 
warrantable. St. Paul, in writing to the Philippians (II, 26) 
mentions the report that reached them about the sickness of Epa- 
phroditus, his co-worker and ‘‘fellow-soldier’’ 6lé7u nxovoare 
Ori noberncer), The seriousness of the sickness was emphasized 
by the saint in the following verse : ‘‘ Nam et infirmatus est usque 
ad mortem’’—xal yap hobevecey rupumAnovoy Ouvarw, In the 
Gospel of St. John there are several clear examples. In chapter 4, 
verse 46, there is found the account of the ruler “cujus fflius 
infirmabatur Capharnaum’’—od 6 vlds jobéver év Karepvaovy, 
The gravity of the case is evidenced by the plea of the ruler to 
Christ: ‘Lord, come down, before that my son die’’ (v. 49). 
In the eleventh chapter of St. John the word aadevew is 
used three times to describe the condition of Lazarus. That 
Lazarus was ‘‘sick unto death’? is certainly clear from the Gospel 
story. Again the term is found in the Gospel of St. Matthew, 
when he recounts the words of Christ to the twelve sent forth 
by Jesus with the power of miracles: Acfevouvras, Gepamevere, 
herpols xabapifere, vexpous eeElpere, Satpovia éxBaddere, &e. 
(X, 8). Finally in the Acts of the Apostles (IX, 37) the Greek text 
acbevioacay amobavety (Ut infirmata moreretur’’) makes it 
manifest that it is a question of the more serious bodily infirmi- 
ties.18 This meaning of dcGevei is made all the more certain by 
its connection with xépvovrain the following verse: ‘Et oratio 
fidei salvabit infirmum.’’ K dprw is equivalent to ‘‘deficio, lacesso 
et graviore infirmitate laboro.’’ It ceases then to be surprising 
that theologians define dofevety to mean ‘‘nericuloso morbo 
laborare,’’ and xéuyeu to signify ‘‘morti propinquum esse.”’ 


Examples of this identical meaning of dofevety can also 
be found in classical Greek. Thus Demosthenes, in his 


11 Commentar. in Ep. 8. Jac., ad cap. V, 14. 
12 Disp. 42, sect. 2, n. 3. 
18 Of. Berti, De Theol. Discipl., tom. VIII, 1. 35, de Extr. Unct.; e9: 


10 Extreme Unction 


first Oration against Philip, speaks of the relief the Athenians 
felt when they heard of the sickness of Philip because they 
expected him to die: Té@vynxe Pidurmoss Ov wa Al, ddd’ dodeveis, 
Similarly in the first paragraph of the first chapter of the 
Anabasis: érel 6€ jobérer Aapetos xalvmwreve redevTiy Tov Biou, 
€BovAeTo TW TAtdE AuUGoTéepwW TapeEtvat, 

These arguments are certainly at first blush quite convinc- 
ing. Yet it is not to be denied nor concealed that they become 
startlingly less convincing when one looks in a lexicon, there to 
learn that neither doGeveiy nor xapve Signify solely or primarily 
or even commonly ‘‘aegrotum esse,’’ much less ‘‘periculose 
aegrotum esse.’’ Nor is the argument valid that they are used 
exclusively in the Scriptures in such a sense so that their sig- 
nification in Holy Writ has become hallowed. The word xayvecv 
appears in the Scriptures but five times, and nowhere outside 
of James V, 14 does it signify ‘‘aegrotum esse.’’!4 *%AgGevety is 
more often used in the Bible, but not infrequently does it mean 
a deficiency in natural or supernatural forces necessary for a 
particular end. An example of this is to be had in the book of 
Judges (XVI, 7-11). There Samson deceived Delilah repeatedly, 
telling her that if she resorted to several expedients, xal aobevnow 
xal écouat ws ets THY avVOpwrwy, Add to this the fact that the force 
aobevety of in these comparisons is learned more from the context 
than from the inherent significance of the word—and it will be 
seen that too much stress cannot be laid on the grammatical 
import of the terms. 

The true force of dcOevety can be gathered best from 
a study of its setting in the text of St. James. In verse 13 
there is mentioned a general remedy against all afflictions, viz., 
prayer (zpocevxécOw). In the very next verse aspecial kind of 
prayer is prescribed for a particular kind of affliction. The meaning 
of aobevet can be gauged from zpocxadecdabw rods mpeo Burépous 
Ths éxxdnolas, The sick man is advised to eall the priests of 
the Church. He is therefore considered to be weighed down by 


his sickness to such an extent that he cannot approach the priests 
himseli—a thing per se required by courtesy\!® Then St. 


14 Ropes (Epistle of St. James—Internat’l Critical Commentary—p. 308) 
notes that the use of mapuvery in the sense of this verse is 
common in secular Greek. 

15 Bord, L’Hatréme Onction, p. 56. 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 11 


James talks of a certain ritualistic function—a prayer-unction— 
which must be done by the ‘‘presbyteri’’ and by no others; thus 
connoting some very unusual status of the acevo. e., his seri- 
ous sickness. Moreover the presence of no slight indisposition 
in the sick man was in the mind of the apostle when he wrote of 
the wonderful effects of this ‘‘prayer-unction.’’ The man is to be 
‘“‘saved,’’ to be ‘‘raised up,’’ and if necessary, his sins are to be 
remitted. There is an unmistakable innuendo of the incom- 
petency of the natural powers to obtain this result—for it is the 
Lord Who ‘‘saves’’ and ‘‘raises up’’ the sick person. Whenever 
divine aid of such a nature is regarded as necessary for an in- 
valid, his affliction must surely be grave. 

One objection may be raised to this explanation. Primarily, 
it is true, the ‘‘prayer-unction’’ was instituted for the seriously 
sick; but may not its application be extended to those who are 
burdened with grief and other afflictions of the soul? The 
answer is decidedly, ‘‘No.’’ Such an extension is in no way 
permissible. In verse 13 St. James expressly provides a remedy 
for the other afflictions of man, viz., personal prayer—‘‘Trista- 
tur aliquis vestrum? Oret.’’ 


TIpocxarerdcbw rovs mperBurépous THs éexxAnolas, 


In classical Greek the word mpeoBirepo. surely means 
‘‘provecti aetate.’’ In the New Testament, if used without 
further determination or qualification, it generally has the force 
of ‘‘praepositi Ecclesiae.’’ Thus in the Acts of the Apostles 
(XIV, 22), the pastoral Epistles (I Tim., V, 17 & 19; Tit. I, 5) 
and in Peter’s first epistle (V, 1) they are surely the officers of 
the Church, ‘‘episcopi et sacerdotes secundi ordinis.’’ There 
are many places in the epistles that ‘‘presbyteri’’ is translated 
to mean ‘‘the ancients.’’ The verse of St. Peter’s Epistle just 
quoted will explain to some extent the question whether ‘*the 
‘ancients’? were the presiding priests or simply the laymen in 
charge of a community. ‘‘The ancients, therefore,’’ writes the 
Prince of the Apostles, ‘‘that are among you, I beseech, who 
am myself also an ancient,’’ &. Here it is hard to construe 
‘‘presbyteri’’? in any other sense than ‘‘praepositi Heclesiae.”’ 
This amounts to practical certainty when we read further. 
‘(Weed the flock of God,’’ he tells them, . . . ‘‘taking care of it, 


12 Extreme Unction 


not by constraint but willingly according to God, not for filthy 
lucre’s sake, but voluntarily: neither as lording it over the 
clergy, but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart. 
And when the Prince of pastors shall appear, you shall receive 
a never-fading crown of glory.’’ Surely priestly, and even 
episcopal duties, such as these could not be commanded of the 
laymen of the community, no matter how venerable they might 
be. Similar interpretations may be deduced from the context 
in other places of the New Testament where ‘‘presbyteri’’ is 
rendered as ‘‘the ancients.’’!® 

It cannot be contended however that there is no place in 
the New Testament where ‘‘presbyter’’ cannot be rationally in- 
terpreted except as ‘‘priest.’’ St. John calls himself 6 mpeGtrepos 
at the beginning of his second and third Epistles. This is 
rendered in the Vulgate as ‘‘Senior’’ and in the English tran- 
slation as ‘‘The ‘ancient.’’ Whether St. John is speaking of 
himself as an apostle, or as a very old man, or as the last of 
the apostles, cannot be settled with certainty. A second instance 
is found in 1 Tim., V, 1 sqq.:‘‘An ancient man (mpecBurépw) 
rebuke not, but entreat him as a father; young men, as breth- 
ren; old women, as mothers; young women, as sisters, in all 
chastity. Honor widows that are widows indeed.’’ Here the 
absolute possibility of construing mpeoBirepos in any other 
sense than ‘‘provectus aetate’’ is quite evident. The result must 
be consequently that the words robs mpecBurépovs do not 
finally close the question that priests only are meant in the 
text of St. James. 

When used, however, with the determining clause 77s 
éxxdnotiasthe argument gains immense strength. It is hard to 
see how the complete phrase could signify any other personages 
than those who perform the sacred ministry, those who are 
called ‘‘priests’’? in the Church. In this very sense St. Luke 
used this term in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘‘A Mileto autem 
mittens Ephesum, vocavit rods rpeaBurépous ris éxxdnotas.’’™* 

16 Cf. A. A., XI, 30; XV, 4, 6, 22, 23; XVI, 4; XXI, 18; &e. 

17 Act. App., XX, 17. Strangely enough, the Vulgate renders this 
‘*Majores natu ecclesiae’’; but it is rightly interpreted by 
St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haereticos, lib. ITI, cap. 14, n. 2—M. P. L., 7, 
914) to mean bishops and priests. Modern exegetes accept this 


meaning. Cf. e.g., Knabenbauer, Comm. in Act. App., ad cap. XX, 
v. 17—Cursus Script. Sac. 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 13 


Kal rpocevidcOwoar ér' abrdv ddelWarres (abrdv) ddalw & 7G 
dvouart (rod) Kupiou, 

This contains clear mention of the necessary elements of 
the sacrament: oil, the remote matter; unction, the proximate 
matter; prayer in the name of the Lord, the form. The phrase 
mpocevédobwar ér’ ablréy is an additional proof that the subject 
is considered ‘‘decumbens.’’ It is to be noted that the aorist 
participle g\elWarres signifies a simultaneous action with that 
expressed in zpocevédcOwoav.1® Thus the praying and the anoint- 
ing are to be done at the same time, as is required for the 
valid confection of any sacrament that the matter and form 
be present at one and the same time. The apostle does not 
prescribe the form of unction nor the prayer to be employed. 
This is due to the fact that he was instructing the faithful, and 
not the priests!®—and also, and perhaps more truly, because a 
set form of prayer and a particular mode of unction are not 
essential. Priests, however, must do the anointing in the name 
of the Lord, that is, by His order and command, as His legates 
and ministers.2° It cannot mean a mere invocation of the Lord’s 
name, because this is already implied in the mandate ‘‘orent 
super eum’’—and the assumption of tautology is unwarrant- 
able. We are led then to no other conclusion than that the 
Apostle is inculeulating here the divine institution of this rite. 
Its perpetuity is secured because it is not given to charismatics, 
but is placed as one of the functions of the priestly office. Since 
the priesthood is perpetual, so is this power. 


Kal 7 ex) Tis TigTews owoet TOV XauvorTA, mal evyepet avrov 

6 Kipws: xév dpaptias H memoinxws ayelnoerar aura 
(James V, 15). 

This verse asserts the existence of the only other necessary 

element to make Extreme Unction a sacrament, viz., its effects. 

First of all, the health or safety of the sick man is generally 


18 Bord, L’Extréme Onction, p. 45. 
19 Bord, Le. 


20 Ven. Bede, Exp. sup. Jac. Epist. (M. P. L., 93, 43), is of the opinion 
that the phrase, éy T@ OvduaTe xupiov, should be taken with 
é\alq not with ddelpavres The majority of theologians and 
exegetes do not agree with him. They hold that it applies to the 
action, the proximate matter, rather than to the material or remote 
matter. Cf. Bord, op. cit., pp. 45-46. 


14 Eztreme Unction 


ascribed to the rite, i. e. to the work performed. But since 
this rite is simply an instrumental cause—as all sacramental 
rites are—the health or safety is more accurately attributed to 
the Lord—‘‘et alleviabit eum Dominus.’’ Finally the sequel 
of such an effect in a sin-burdened subject is mentioned—‘‘et st 
in peccatis sit, remittentur, ev.”’ 

A close inspection of the text reveals much. ‘‘Oratio fides 
salvabit infirmum.’’ This prayer is not pronounced by the 
penitent but by the priests. They are commanded to do the 
praying—‘‘orent super eum.’’ It is the prayer of faith be- 
cause a) objective faith teaches us the Divine institution and 
efficacy of the rite and because b) subjective faith moves the 
priest to perform this rite in the sincere belief that it is more 
efficacious than a simple deprecation. 

‘“Salvabit’’—is equivalent to ‘‘servabit, liberabit a malis 
quae eum premunt.’”*1 Yet what are these evils which the 
seriously sick usually suffer? In general they are physical pains 
and weakness, which produce sorrow of soul, affliction of mind, 
ineptitude to salutary impulses of grace, fear of death, dread 
of judgment, horror of the punishments of the other life, re- 
morse of conscience, diffidence, impatience, temptations to de- 
spair, ete. Not everybody, it is true, is afflicted in the same 
degree. Yet the text uses the word ‘‘salvabit,’’ connoting that 
Extreme Unction destroys, or at least impairs, that which physi- 
cal evils cause in man. It directs its batteries first against 
spiritual evils, which are always evils simpliciter to men; but 
its effects overflow against physical evils when such an exuber- 
ance is expedient for the welfare of the soul. 


The text next reveals the mode employed by the Lord in 
the ‘‘saving’’ of the sick man. ‘‘Et alleviabit eam Dominus’’— 
He will ‘‘raise him up’’—éyepet airdy—i. e., sustentadit, 
eriget, animabit, confortabit.*? The infirm will receive powers 
that will make him superior to the evils that oppress him; he 
will be able to rise above the depressions of nature, the diffi- 
dence, the cowardice that possesses him. He will become cap- 
able of all salutary acts conformable to his status, so that he 
may be disposed for the perfect healing of the soul, and, if 


21 Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 68. 
22 Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 69. 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 15 


expedient, also for the healing of the body. Such an alleviation 
is effected by actual graces. When, however, the illness is long, 
there is granted habitual aid, sanctifying grace conferring a 
right to such actual graces that the sick man needs. 

Many Protestant theologians have endeavored to restrict 
the meaning of the words ‘‘saved’’ and ‘‘raised up’”’ to bodily 
effects. Puller?? defends this view with especial vehemence. Yet 
this would involve an arbitrary and violent construction of the 
text and does not supply a reasonable explanation of the uni- 
versal and perpetual character of the apostle’s prescription. ‘‘A 
fow verses further on,’’ says Toner,”? ‘‘the predominating spiri- 
tual and eschatological connotation of ‘saving’ in St. James’ 
mind emerges clearly in the expression, ‘shall save his soul 
from death.’’’ Neither can we reasonably suppose that the 
apostle endeavored to inculcate that every anointed Christian 
would be the recipient of bodily alleviation and cure; yet he 
orders the unction for all, insinuating that the ‘‘saving’’ and 
‘‘raising up’’ are at least the normal, if not the infallible, effects 
of the prayer-unction. ‘‘Are we to suppose, therefore,’’ asks 
Toner2> ‘‘that St. James thus solemnly recommends universal 
recourse to a rite which, after all, will be efficacious for the 
purpose intended only by way of a comparatively rare excep- 
tion?’’ As a consequence it is not hard to see that these elab- 
orate and even clever attempts to explain away the meaning of 
the Jacobean text are doomed to failure. 


“Ht si in peccatis sit’’—xdpv ayaprias } TmeToinxws 


In an effort to defend their opinion that the principal 
effect of Extreme Unction is the remission of venial sin, many 
Catholic theologians say that this last effect is not conditionally 
promised. For example, Estius writes: ‘‘Scire enim oportet 
conjunctionem illam ‘si’ saepe sic usurpari, ut non tam condi- 
tionem incertae ac dubiae rei significet, quam concessionem rei 
certae et indubitatae, quaemadmodum Mal. I dicitur: ‘Si pater 


23 Puller, The Anointing of the Sick in Scripture and Traditson, (London, 
1904), p. 289 sqq. 

24 Catholic Encye., art. ‘‘Exztreme Unction.’’ Toner has reference to 
verse 20: ‘‘Scire debet quoniam qui converti fecerit peccatorem ab 
errore viae suae, salvabit animam ejus a morte et cooperiet multi- 
tudinem peccatorum.’’ 

25 L. ¢, 


16 Extreme Unction 


ego sum, ubi est honor meus? et s? Dominus ego sum, ubi est 
timor meus?’ i. e., cum constet me Patrem esse et Dominum 
westrum, cur non ut Patrem honoratis et ut Dominum timetis? 
Sic Paulus ait II Thes. I: ‘Si tamen justus est apud Deum 
retribuere ;’ etc. Et ipse Jacobus alibi in hac epistola (c. 1): 
‘Si quis vestrum indiget sapientia;’ etc.? Quis enim vestrum 
non indiget sapientia?’’2® 

Though supported by many, this interpretation is false. 
An examination of the Greek texts cited by Hstius reveals the 
employment of the particle ie with the indicative—a gram- 
matical form always signifying a thing certain. But James 
V, 15 contains the particle xa It is a true conditional 
promise, unqualified by any limitation to venial sins. Indeed 
mortal sins are first thought of in such a connection, for a man 
with only venial sins is hardly spoken of as a ‘‘man in sin.”’ 


A point not to be overlooked is that the Apostle does not 
attribute this remission of sins either to the prayer of faith or 
to the Lord. As a result, it is a licit conclusion that this re- 
mission follows from the alleviation, that it is a secondary effect. 
This is a further warrant for the inference that alleviation 
includes the infusion of sanctifying grace. 


This elaborate analysis of the Jacobean text establishes 
beyond doubt the sacramentality of Extreme Unction. We have 
a sensible sign, efficacious of grace, permanently established by 
Christ. We have shown that the sacred unction with prayer 
signifies an internal supernatural unction, alleviation and exhil- 
aration—and effects this, even thru the infusion of first grace 
when necessary. The permanency of institution by Christ is 
seen by its place among the priestly functions, by its annexa- 
tion to the priestly character, whose existence is guaranteed by 
its author, Christ.?? 


This analysis is not without a canonical bearing. It elu- 
cidates paragraph 1 of Canon 938; it enlightens us as the true 
meaning of various terms in 940 and 943; it explains the 
insistence of the legislator in Canon 941 in regard to conferring 


28 Comm. in quart. Lib. Sent., dist. xxiii, s. 4, p. 287E. 
27 Cf. 8S. C. S. Off., ‘‘ Lamentabilt,’’? July 3, 1907, Errores Modernistarum, 
n. 48—A. 8. 8., XL, 476. 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 17 


the sacrament at least conditionally although it is not de ne- 
cessitate medit. 


It would hardly be wise to pass over without a word the 
reference in the Council of Trent to the Gospel of St. Mark. 
The words of the decree ‘apud Marcum quidem insinuatum’’ 
refer to the thirteenth verse of the sixth chapter of his gospel: 
‘Bt exeuntes praedicabant ut poenitentiam agerent: et dae- 
monia multa ejiciebant et ungebant oleo multos aegros et sana- 
bant.’? Many theologians, both before and after the Council of 
Trent have held that the institution of Extreme Unction is found 
in these words. Among these are found such names as Victor 
of Antioch,28 Theophylactus,2? Amulo, bishop of London (841),°° 
Huymo, bishop of Halberstadt,?! Euthymus,** Maldonatus,*? 
De Sainte-Beuve, Berti®5 and Schell.3® The main line of 
argument of these theologians is substantially this: it cannot be 
admitted that the Lord wished the Apostles to cure all sick per- 
sons indiscriminately. Such a charisma came to the Apostles 
after the coming of the Paraclete—and consequently its exer- 
cise was a rare event. It must be concluded then that, as the 
end of the Messiah’s mission, so the purpose of the unction of 
the sick was primarily spiritual, viz. the conversion to true 
penance. To the anointed sick a pledge was given of participa- 
tion in the goods and graces which the Messiah offered to man- 
kind—a pledge confirmed by the corporal cure of many. Ac- 
cordingly the words of the Evangelist refer primarily to a 
spiritual healing; whence the deduction that the unction of the 
sick was the sacramentum ‘‘exeuntium.’’ 


This argumentation is by no means satisfying. First of 
all, the purpose of the Apostles’ mission is clearly announced 


28 Comment. ad Marc. VI, 18—Cramer, Catena Graec. Patrum, I, p. 324. 

29 Enarratio in Evangelium Maret, c. VI, vv. 12, 13—M. P. G., 123, 550C. 

30 Epistola ad Theobaldum, ep. Lingoniensis—M. P. L., 116, 82D. 

31 Homilia CV in Verba Evangelii, Feria V Pentecostes—M. P. L., 118, 
573C. 

32 Comm. in Mare. c. VI, vv. 12, 13—M. P. G., 129, 807B. 

83 Comment. in Marc. VI, v. 18, vol. I, p. 517. 

84 Tract. de Sacr. Unct. Infirm., disp. II, a. 1—Migne, Cursus Theol. 
Comp., xxiv, 19 sqq. 

85 De Theol. Discip., Tom VIII, 1. 35, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.’’ ¢. 2. 

86 Katholische Dogmatik, 3 Bd. II Teil, p. 616 s. 


18 Extreme Unction 


in Matt. X, 1 #7 and Luke IX, 1-2.86 There it is seen that the 
Lord gave them the power to cure only as a criterion of the 
truth they were teaching. There is no indication of the re- 
mission of sins or of any sacramental rite. The Gospel writers, 
when speaking of the mission of the Apostles, do not tell what 
rule the Lord prescribed for the use of the power in their 
hands. How the command was executed can be seen by Luke 
IX, 6: ‘‘Egressi autem circuibant per castella, evangelizantes 
et curantes ubique.’’ St. Mark adds that many demons were 
exorcised and many sick healed by unction.*® The words of 
St. Luke (@eparetovres mavraxov) and of St. Mark (jrecgov... 
xal ébepamevov) must be understood of corporal cures. It then 
becomes manifest that no conclusive exegesis of the sacramen- 
tality of Extreme Unction can be found in the Marcian text. 
The Council of Trent cautiously inserted that the sacrament was 
‘“insinuated’’ therein, i. e., prefigured or hinted at, but it took 
care not to advance it as a Spiritual text supporting the eredi- 
bility of the doctrine. 


Other powerful reasons can be adduced against the prob- 
ability of the institution of this sacrament in the account of St. 
Mark: 1) The effect of the Apostolic Unction was complete 
corporal sanation primarily, and probably in a miraculous man- 
ner; that of Extreme Unction is complete spiritual cure pri- 
marily, and possible corporal cure secondarily: 2) The subject 
of Extreme Unction is a baptized sick person; there is no 
mention made of the necessity of Baptism in the subject when 
the Apostles exercised their gifts of healing: 3) The minister 
of Extreme Unction is a priest; the Apostles, at the time they 
received their power, were not yet priests: 4) Extreme Unce- 
tion is the complement of Penance; yet Penance had not yet 
been instituted.4? These additional reasons serve to establish 


37 ‘*Et convocatis duodecim discipulis suis dedit illis potestatem spirituum 
immundorum ut eicerent eos et curarent omnem languorem et omnem 
infirmitatem.’’ 

38 ‘*Convocatis autem duodecim apostolis, dedit illis virtutem et pote- 
statem super omnia daemonia, et ut languores curarent. Et misit illos 
praedicare regnum Dei et sanare infirmos.’’ 

89 VI, 13. 

40 Cf. Alb. a Bulsano, Inst. Theol. Dog., vol. III, p. 197; Kern, Tract. de 
Ext. Unct., p. 78-9; Bellarmine, De Eat. Unct., lib. unicus, ¢. 1-2; 
See disp. 39, sect. 1, n. 4, Benedict XIV, De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, ¢. 1. 
peer 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 19 


more firmly the utter untenability of the assertion that the 
Gospel of St. Mark demonstrates the sacramentality of Extreme 
Unction. 


B) Proof from Tradition. 


The argument from Tradition, though of paramount im- 
portance, cannot here be entered into with the same detailed 
analysis as that of the Scriptural proof. A worthy presenta- 
tion of it would assume huge proportions and would require 
the use of too much space. Besides, much of it will be found 
scattered thruout the commentaries on the several canons. 


It is sufficient to remark that there is a comparative paucity 
of extant testimonies from the early centuries—and that as a 
result Catholics have recourse to a general argument from pre- 
scription. The Eastern Church, although separated since 869, 
has never ceased to regard the Jacobean rite as a sacrament. 
Moreover, the Monophysites and the Nestorians, who broke 
away from Rome in the fifth century, retained in their rituals 
the unction of the sick. This is positive evidence that these 
churches have been in possession of a common and undivided 
tradition as far back at least as the beginning of the fourth 
century. On the other hand, no evidence is forthcoming from 
that or any earlier time that would tend to enervate the legit- 
imate presumption that the tradition is apostolic.*! 

The reason of the searcity of testimonies is hard to find. 
Binterim *? ascribes it to the fact that it came under the ‘‘d- 
sciplina arcan.’’ He has evidently forgotten that this very reg- 
ulation did not prevent the ecclesiastics of those ages from 
making frequent references to other sacraments which fell under 
the scope of the same discipline. It is refreshing, too, to real- 
ize that Launoi is rash in his contention that recourse to this 
sacrament was much rarer in earlier centuries.*% 


41 Cf. Liber Sacramentorum Gregorii Magni—‘‘Oratio ad infirmum 
ungendum’?’—M. P. L., 78, 233C; The Euchologion of Serapio; 
Wobbermin, ‘‘ Altchristliche Stucke aus de Kirche Agyptens’’ in 
Zietschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, t. xx, p. 291 sqq., 451 sqq. Cf. 
words of Jeremias, schismatic Greek patriarch—apud Schelstrate, 
Acta Orient. Eccl., I, 202; Denziger, R+t Ortent., II, 483. 

42 Die Vorzuglichsten Denkwiirdigkeiten der Christkathol. Kirche, vol. VI, 
pt. III, p. 241. This view is also held by Billot, ‘‘De Ecclesiae 
Sacramentis,’’? (De Extrema Unctione), thesis xxiv, parag. 2, p. 230. 

43 Op. Omnia, t. 1, p. 455 sqq., also p. 561. 


20 Extreme Unction 


There are better explanations available. In the first place, 
several early commentaries on St. James’ Epistle (by Clement 
of Alexandria, Didymus, St. Augustine and Cyril of Alexan- 
dria) have been almost totally lost, leaving as the earliest ac- 
curately preserved treatment that of St. Bede’s (735). Fur- 
thermore it is to be remembered that Extreme Unction is the 
supplementary sacrament of Penance, and that in the early 
days it was administered before Viaticum. The Fathers had 
no systematic sacramental theology. They treated of various 
dogmas as the interests of public instruction required. When 
they spoke of Penance, they had reference usually to public 
confessions, and not to private confessions made in danger of 
death. About the administration of Penance privately the 
Fathers rarely spoke. Since Extreme Unction followed such 
secret confessions, it can be understood that the silence of the 
Fathers on the administration of Penance privately goes far in 
explaining their silence on Extreme Unction. 

In conclusion it may be remarked that Catholics must 
be on their guard against endeavoring to prove too much from 
patristic writings. Protestant controversialists insist that the 
Fathers speak in terms of Trent; they demand that we prove 
that Extreme Unction was recognized as a sacrament in the 
strict sense long before the definition of sacrament in the strict 
sense was drawn up. We are not bound to accede to their 
unreasonable exactions. We have done enough when we have 
shown that St. James permanently prescribed this anointing 
in terms that imply its sacramental efficacy; that the Church 
was content for many centuries with the plain words of the 
Epistle—and simply went on fulfilling the Apostolic prescrip- 
tion: and that, finally, when need of an exact definition did 
arise, the Church defined infallibly and forever ‘‘the true mean- 
ing and the proper efficacy of the Jacobean prayer-unction.’’*4 


Ill. THe Enp 


The clear conception of the end of a thing is conducive 
to a more perfect knowledge of its ultimate nature, its efficacy 
and its attributes. As a consequence theologians, after demon- 


44 J. P. Toner—Cath. Encycl., art. ‘‘Extreme Unction.’’ 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 21 


strating the sacramentality of Extreme Unction, address them- 
selves to the question of its end and purpose. They all agree 
that this divine aid enriches the soul with all helps necessary 
to put it in the state of grace. Since the Council of Trent, 
however, theologians have been busied with the necessity of 
insisting on the existence of Purgatory, which the Reformers 
denied. Jansenistic rigorism tainted the works of others; with 
the result that they have seemingly refused or neglected to 
attribute to this sacrament all of its rightful powers. 


But later theologians, especially those of the present day, 
like Kern,! have recalled that the benign Redeemer wishes not 
only that His faithful should escape the fires of hell, but also 
that they should eseape purgatory’s painful punishment by an 
immediate entrance into glory. This is accomplished only by 
a complete sanation of the soul, by freeing it from all reatus 
of sin or of punishment, and by reenforcing it against all 
spiritual weakness from past sins or present bodily afflictions. 
Mortal man, weakened by disease and pain, would hardly be 
eapable of doing this alone. He needs some aid, an external 
help to fill the place of his dwindling powers. This help, we 
know, is found in the sacrament of Extreme Unction. The 
proximate end of Extreme Unction—the end for which all ef- 
fects concur—is then the perfect sanation of the soul. This 
end is always intended by the Lord, and therefore is always 
obtained if the sacred rite is impeded by no obstacle. 


Among the particular effects of this sacrament is the resto- 
_ ration of health, if it be expedient to the salvation of the soul. 
Not rarely is the perfect sanation of the soul more benefited by 
a corporal alleviation than by a prolonged continuance of pain 
even to death. In this case the sacrament exercises its ‘‘vis 
sanativa.’’ Often, too, the disease is of such a nature that thru 
medical skill the patient will naturally recover. The means 
of salvation are certainly not destined to kill any one. Accord- 
ingly in such eases the ultimate end of the sacrament viewed 
secundum se, viz., immediate entrance into glory, is deferred— 
only to be more happily attained if the subject uses well the 
spiritual goods he has received. 


1 Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 81-85. 


22 Extreme Unction 


The end of Extreme Unction then can be said to be the 
complete sanation of the soul together with its immediate en- 
trance into glory, unless the restitution of bodily health is more 
expedient. In defense of this, theologians mobilize a host of 
irrefragable arguments. They adduce reasons of congruity,— 
to show how becoming it was to the benignity and goodness of 
Christ to attach to the sacrament of the ‘‘exeuntium’’ the power 
and efficacy to wipe away all barriers to an immediate entrance 
into heaven. They array a series of quotations from patristic 
writings? and ancient liturgies* to support their claim. They 
draw up a battle-line of scintillating Scholastics, geniuses with- 
out peer in the realms of theological intellectuality. Blessed 
Albertus Magnus,® the Seraphic Bonaventure,® Angelic Thomas,’ 
the subtle Scotus, Peter of Tarantasia (afterwards Innocent 
V),° the dogged Durandus’® are the leaders of this army. Be- 
sides these shining lights, there are adduced the reserves, such 
as Richard Middleton,!! Aureolus—the prince of Scotists,!? 
Peter de Palude—an esteemed Thomist,'* Gersonius,'* Dionysius 
of Carthage,!® and Capreolus—prince of Thomists.7® 


The realms of the Hast have been invaded for testimony to 


2 Kern, Tract. de Eat. Unct., p. 82. 

3 E.g., S. Chrysostom., De Sacerdotio, lib. III, n. 6—M. P. G., 48, 644; 
§. Hilarius, Tract. in Ps. CXXI, n. 12—M. P. G., 9, 665D, 666A; 
Procopius, Comm. in Levit., c. II, v. 1—M. P. G., 87, 702; Hie 
ronymus, In cap. XLV Ezechielis, v. 24—M. P. L., 25, 456C; 8. Greg. 
Nyssa, In Cant. Cantic. Hom. ITI—M. P. G., 44, 826; 8. Augustinus, 
Quaest. Evang.,—M. P. L., 35, 1340. 

4 Martene, De Antiq. Ecc. Rit., 1. 1, c. 7, a. 4—Ordines II, IX, XII; 
ef. also Missa pro Infirmis (Absolutio cum Imposttione Manuum)— 
Martene, 1. c., Ordo XII. 

5 Comm. in lib. quartum Sent., ad dist. xxiii, dis. I, a. 2. 

6 Brevilog., pars. VI, ¢. 11. 

7 Suppl., q. 29, a. 1; ILI, g. 65, a. 1: Summa Philos., 1. IV, c. 73. 

8 Reportata Paristana, Comm. in ltd. quartum Sent., ad dist. xxiii qu. 
unic. 

9 Comm. in lib. quartum Sent., q. IT, a. 2. 

10 Comm. in tb. quartum Sent., ad dist. xxiii, dis. IT, q. 2, n. IT. 
11 Comm. in tb. quartum Sent., ad dist. xxiii, a. 1, q. 3. 

12 Comm. tn tb. quartum Sent., ad dist. xxiii, a. 2. 

13 Comm. in lib. quartum Sent., ad dist. xxiii, q. 4. 

14 Regulae Morales, r. 155. 

15 Summa fidesr orthodorae, 1, IV, a. 146 (Opera Omnia, vol. XVIII, 
p.A97A). 

16 Comm. in IV lib. Sent., q. 1, a. 3, ad. 5. 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction De 


this claim. Oriental church documents and theologians 1” are 
investigated with searching scrutiny and reveal with a mar- 
velous unanimity the reasonableness and genuineness of the 
contention of present day theologians in regard to the end of 
Extreme Unction. The Council of Trent presents another bul- 
wark of defense. For ‘‘it hath also seemed good to the holy 
Synod to subjoin to the preceding doctrine on Penance the 
following on the sacrament of Extreme Unction, which by the 
Fathers was regarded as being the completion, not only of Pen- 
ance, but also of the whole Christian life, which ought to be a 
perpetual penance.’’8 Now if Extreme Unction is the com- 
plement of Penance, it accomplishes what Penance leaves un- 
done, it perfects what Penance leaves incomplete in the full 
remission of sins. It must remove all our disabilities and restore 
to our anemic souls the ruddy glow of grace that shone in them 
immediately after Baptism. In Penance the stain of sin ig 
washed from us and we are garbed in the robe of sanctifying 
grace. But the justice of God exacts that some temporal pun- 
ishment be undergone in satisfaction for the affront to His 
Majesty. Extreme Unction however is a revelation of the in- 
effable mercy of Him Who willeth not the death of a sinner. 
In his sacrament God’s justice is swallowed up in His mercy. 
The mercy of Him Who died for us cannot brook the delay 
which His justice demands, and accordingly He has invented 
this wonderful way of circumventing—as it were—His very 
Self. 

With this alignment of evidence and authority, the propo- 
sition seems proven. <A thorough realization of this will reveal 
the importance of the sacrament of Extreme Unction. It should 
be a spur to zeal for priests and people to spend every effort to 
take advantage of this veritable sesame to the treasures of 
God. 


17 Symeon Thessalonicenses, De Sacro Euchelaes Ritu—M. P, G. 155, 527C 
& 530D; M. Calcas, Ilept micrews xal mept trav dpxav 


THs xaboALANS TigTEWs, Cc. 6,—M. P. G., 152, 607A; Ordo Lampadis 
Syrorum Jacobitarum—Denziger, Ritus Orsent., t. II, p. 509; ibid., 
p. 515; Antiquus Ritus apud Armenos—ibid, p. 522; Ordo Lampadis 
Alexandrinus, ibid., p. 500; Offictwm 8S. Oles,—Goar, Euchologium, 
p. 337 sqq. 

18 Sess, XIV, De Ext. Unct., proem.—Translation by Waterworth, Canons 
and Decrees of the Counce. Trent, p. 104. 


24 Extreme Unction 


IV. THE EssENCE 
1. The Matter of Extreme Unction. 


The remote matter of Extreme Unction is oil of olives. This 
the Council of Trent definitely defined: ‘‘Intellexit enim Ecele- 
sia materiam esse oleum ab episcopo benedictum.’* There has 
been no doubt that the oil meant by St. James is the oil of 
olives.2 Every heretic who has insisted on belief in this sacra- 
ment at all has insisted on olive oil as the remote matter. 


The congruity of oil as the matter of this sacrament is very 
striking, for the effects produced by oil on the physical body 
bear a singular analogy to those produced by Extreme Unction 
on the soul. St. Gregory of Nyssa expresses beautifully the 
effect of oil: [Oleum est] ‘‘lucis materia, recreat lassitudinem, 
relaxat laborem, caput exhilarat et ad certamina opem fert lis 
qui legitime certant.’’* Other very expressive testimonies are 
those of Gregory the Great* and Theophylactus.5 St. Thomas 
adduces further reasons for the aptitude of oil: “‘The spiritual 
healing, which is given at the end of life, ought to be complete, 
sinee there is no other to follow; it ought also to be gentle, lest 
hope, of which the dying stand in utmost need, be shattered 
rather than fostered. Now oil has a softening effect, it pene- 
trates to the very heart of a thing, and spreads over it. Hence 
in both the foregoing respects, it is suitable matter for this 
sacrament. And since oil is, above all, the name of the liquid 
extract of olives, for other liquids are only called oil from their 
likeness to it, it follows that olive oil is the matter which should 
be employed in this sacrament.’”® 


In the Latin Church it has ever been the custom to employ 
pure, unadulterated olive oil. In some Eastern rites the prac- 
tice of adding a little water as a symbol of Baptism, or a little 


1 Sess. XIV, De Eztr. Unct., cap. 1. 
2 St. Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. in Marc., VI, 18 (apud Catena Grae- 
corum Patrum, edited by Cramer, vol. 1, 324). 
Hom. IX in Cant. Cant., M. P. G., 44, 963A. 
Ezpositionum in lib. I Regum, l. 4, c. 5—M. P. L., 79, 278B. 
Enarratio in Ev. S. Marci, c. VI, 12-18—M. P. G., 123, 550B-C. 
The ‘Summa Theologica’’ (transl. by Fathers of Eng. Domin. Prov.), 
Suppl., q. 29, a. 4. 


co i el 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 25 


wine in memory of the Good Samaritan, or even of the dust of 
the sepulchre of some saint, has long been in vogue.’ 


There is no doubt that some blessing of the oil is befitting,’ 
for this sacrament is administered to baptized people who are 
members of Christ’s mystical body and are holy with at least 
an ontological sanctity. Neither is there any doubt that a bless- 
ing of the oil is required by precept, for all rituals demand 
this. Some theologians, however, have denied that there is any 
need of blessing for the valid confection of the sacrament. 
Among these the chief names are Victoria,° J uenin,? De Sainte- 
Beuve,!° Berti?! and Natalis Alexander. 


St. Thomas advances a triple argument against these theo- 
logians. Ist, all sacramental efficacy descends from Christ; con- 
sequently those sacraments which He Himself made use of, 
have their efficacy from His very use. E. g., by corporal touch 
He gave the efficacy of spiritual regeneration to water, so that 
the blessing of baptismal water is not essential. However, 
Christ did not use this sacrament of Extreme Unction, nor any 
corporal unction.13 2nd, a blessing of the matter is required 
from the plenitude of the grace received, which causes not only 
the forgiveness of the sins themselves, but also of their effects, 
and at times of the bodily infirmity. 3rd, the corporal effects 
are not caused from the natural properties of the oil; hence 
it is eminently fitting that such efficacy be given to it thru a 
blessing." 

These reasons seem to be reasons of congruity—and do not 
convince beyond the shadow of doubt. A few facts from tradi- 
tion will suffice to prove our point. The question whether the 





1 Cf. Symeon of Thessalonica, De Sacro Euchelacs Ritu, cap. 
CCLXXXVIII—M. P. G., 155, 523C; Arhangelskij, ‘‘Izsledovanije 
ob istoriceskom razvitii cinosoversenija Jeleosvjascenija ot ustanov- 
lenija sego tainstva do izdanija nynesnjago jego Posledovanija, 8 
podrobnym izjasnenijem sego poslednjago,’’ p. 113, sqq. 

8 Summa Sacramentorum, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ n. 217. 

9 Comm. Hist. et Dog. de Sac., diss. VII, q. 3, ¢. 1, concl, 3. 

10 De Ext. Unct., disp. III, a. 1, apud Migne, Curs. Theol. Comp., XXIV, 
87. 

11 De Theol. Discipl., Tom. VIII, lib. 35, ¢. 4, prop. 4. 

12 Th. D. et M,, lib. IT, ‘‘ De Ext. Unct.,’’ c. 1, a 2. 

18 Soto explains away the unctions of Christ by Magdalen (Luc. VII) 
and Nicodemus (Joan. XXIX) by saying ‘‘ Nullam habebant sacra- 
menti rationem’’ (Comm. in lib. quart. Sent., dist. 23, q. 1, a 3), 

14 Suppl., q. 29, a. 5. 


26 Extreme Unction 


oil needs any blessing at all is the only question considered here. 
The exact nature and quality of the required blessing is left 
to the consideration of Canon 945—a procedure which seems 
more proper. 

The testimony of tradition in favor of the necessity of some 
preconsecration of the oil is overwhelming. Everywhere it is 
found that in the administration of this sacrament blessed oil 
has been employed. The writings of Cassiodorus,® Innocent 
J® Dynamius Patritius,!* -Callinicius,!8 Isaac Antiochenus?!® 
and many others are clear and decisive, and witness conclusively 
to the practices of apostolic times. Furthermore, the Fathers, 
while speaking often of the blessing of Baptismal water, never 
failed to insist that such blessing was by no means essential for 
the valid use of the water. They make no such statements in 
regard to the dispensability of blessing the oil. 

The Scholastics taught unanimously the need of some bless- 
ing.“? Their disciples faithfully followed the teaching until 
the time of the Council of Trent. The words of the Council, 
‘foleum .... benedictum’’ seem to be final. This seems to be 
corroborated by the determination of the matter of Baptism by 
the Council (Sess. VII, de Baptismo, can. 10), and by its 
unwillingness to decide the vehement disputes of theologians in 
regard to the matter of Confirmation and Holy Orders. 


The proximate matter of Extreme Unction is the anointing 
with blessed oil. The treatment of this will come naturally 
under Canon 947, and is accordingly passed over here. 


2. The Form of Extreme Unction. 


The greatest variety of forms have been used in the admin- 
istration of Extreme Unction. Some are deprecative, some opta- 


15 Compleztones in Epp. Apostolorum—ep. 8. Jac. ad dispersos, n. 11— 
M. P,.L.; 70,.1380C, 

16 Hpistolae et Decreta—ep. xxv, c. 8—M. P. L., 20, 559-60; C. I. ©. 
Fontes, n. 19. 

17 Vita 8. Marti, c. I, n. 3—M. P. L., 80, 27C-D. 

18 Vista S. Hypatii—Acta Sanctorum, 17 Jun., vol. IV, p. 251. 

19 Bickell, S. Isaaci Antiocheni Opera Omnia, p. 1, p. 187 sqq. 

20 E. g., Petrus Lombardus, Librs IV Sent., lib. quart., dist. 23, ‘‘De Sac. 
#. U.,’’ n. I—M. P. L., 192, 899; Albertus Magnus, Comm. in Lib. 
quart. Sent., dist. 23, a, 2 ad q. 1; 8. Thomas, Suppl. q. 29, a. 5; 
S. Bonaventure, Comm. tn Lib. quart. Sent., dist. 23, a. 1, q. 3 ad 4; 
Durandus, Comm. in Lib. quart. Sent., dist. 23, qu. 2, ad 2. 


A Dogmatic-Historical. Introduction 27 


tive, others indicative, still others imperative, and some mixed.?! 
Controversies have waged, and still wage, as to the precise 
nature of the form required for the valid confection of the 
sacrament. Among the various forms theologians have found 
it extremely difficult to single out a common element which 
they say is divinely revealed and consequently essential. It is 
not a question whether the present-day Oriental or Occidental 
forms are valid. Such is admitted by all. The problem is 
whether the wording of the formula must contain a real prayer 
—the ‘‘oratio fidet’’ of St. James’ text. 


All the scholastics asserted that some kind of form was 
positively essential for the validity of the sacrament. Most of 
them demanded a formula of deprecation. St. Thomas*? and 
Launoi,2? though tenaciously holding the theory that only a 
deprecative form was admissible, were chary of condemning 
the practice of the ancient rites; and, to explain away sur- 
mounting difficulties, tried to transform by the alchemy of the 
minister’s intention a form held by themselves to be per se 
invalid into one which was eminently permissible. Not a few 
other theologians, especially those who prefer positive argu- 
ments, have striven to make theology and history agree. They 
realize that the indicative form was widely in use in the West 
and to some extent in the Hast, and they see the absurdity of 
denying that the sacrament was validly confected for centuries 
in those churches. As a result they insist on the absolute 
validity of the indicative form.” ; 

Kern2® and Pohle-Preuss** have suggested a compromise, 
by maintaining on the one hand that the deprecatory form iS 
required by the Jacobean text, and on the other hand that the 
indicative forms which have been employed were virtually depre- 
catory.27 They offer an analogy from Scripture:** “Lord, he 
whom Thou lovest is sick’’—a very apt illustration, for it 
21 Cf. Infra, chap. II, p. 73 sqq. 

22 Suppl., qu. 29, a. 8. 

23 Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 543. 

24 E. g., Benedict XIV, De Syn. Dioc., 1. VIII, ¢. 2, n. 2-3. 

25 Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 152-166. 

26 The Sacraments—vol. IV, p. 23. 

27 De Sainte-Beuve, De Ext. Unct., disp. 4, a. 2—apud Migne, Curs. Theol. 
Compl., XXIV, col. 94-7; Martene, De Antiq. Rét. Eccl., 1. 1, ¢. 7, 


a. 3, paragr. 9. , 
28 John XI, 3. 


28 Extreme Unction 


breathes a prayer as truly as if couched in unmistakable terms 
of impetration. Toner, writing in the Catholic Encyclopedia,” 
admits the reasonable construability of some indicative forms 
in the way pointed out by Kern and Pohle-Preuss, but he em- 
phatically denies it in regard to other forms. He declares that 
the prayer used in the blessing of the oil will suffice, if prayer 
be needed at all for the form of the sacrament. 


When the form is deprecative, the question arises whether 


a voluntary distraction of the priest would nullify the sacra- 
ment. Augustine Reding, the Prince-Abbot of Einsiedeln, did 
some very subtle reasoning to prove that the essence of vocal 
prayer would not be destroyed by the presence of voluntary 
distractions.2° Consequently the prayer would be real in the 
form and the Sacrament validly eonfected by ministers who 
deliberately induced distractions. Gonet*! and Billuart®? prof- 
fer a better explanation. The validity of the sacrament does 
not depend on the prayer of the priest as a private person. 
The efficacy of the rite flows from the merits of Christ, in 
Whose person this prayer is made. Consequently, when the 
priest says the words of the form, no matter how distracted he 
is, provided (we are assuming) that he has the intention ‘‘faci- 
endi quod facit Ecclesia,’’ the sacrament will have its effect. 
It is the Church which prays thru its minister. 


V. Tue EFFECTS 


The effects of Extreme Unction are as varied as they are 
potent. As has been said, its end is the perfect healing of the 
soul—and it surely has the inherent power to attain its end in 
those who present no obstacle. There is a certain terseness 
about the description of effects in the decree of Eugene IV to 
the Armenians,! viz., ‘‘the healing of the mind, and so far as 
it is expedient, of the body also.’’ The Council of Trent ex- 
plains the effects somewhat more at length:* ‘‘This effect is 


29 art. ‘‘EHatreme Unction.’’ 

80 Theol. Scholast., tom. 5, q. 1], a. 2. 

31 Clyp. Theol. Thomist., tom. 6, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ disp. proem., a. 2, 
paragr. 4, page 704. 

82 Summa 8S. Thom., ‘‘Tr. de Ext. Unct.,’’ disp. unic., a. III. 


1 Const. ‘‘Hxultate Deo’’ (in Conc. Florentin.) 22 Nov. 1439, paragr. 
14; C. I. C. Fontes, n. 52; Denziger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 700. 
4 Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct., cap. 2. 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 29 


the grace of the Holy Ghost, Whose unction blots out sins, if 
any remain to be expiated, and the consequences (reliquias ) 
of sin, and alleviates and strengthens the soul of the sick person, 
by exciting in him a great confidence in the divine mercy, 
sustained by which he bears more lightly the troubles and suf- 
ferings of disease, and more easily resists the temptations of 
the demon lying in wait for his heel; and sometimes, when it 
is expedient for the soul’s salvation, recovers bodily health.’’ 
All these effects are contained within the scope of ‘‘salvabit,”’ 
‘‘alleviabit,’’? and ‘‘remittentur peccata’’ of the Jacobean text. 


1. The Remission of Sins. 


‘‘Si quis dixerit, sacram infirmorum Unetionem non con- 
ferre gratiam, nee remittere peccata, nec alleviare infirmos: sed 
jam cessasse, quasi olim tantum fuerit gratia curationum, 
AS 177% 4 

This effect is plainly enunciated by St. James—‘‘et si in 
peceatis sit, remittentur ei.’’ It is clearly supported by tradi- 
‘tion, and has been taught by all theologians. All formulae of 
consecration explicitly or equivalently ask for the sanctification 
of the oil in order that it may become a means of salvation.‘ 
In the Western Church today the very form of the sacrament 
proclaims this one effect—‘‘ Indulgeat tibi Dominus... quidquid 
deliquisti.’’ 

Consequently it is a doctrine of Catholic teaching that sins 
are remitted by Extreme Unction. There are no qualifications 
made by the sacred text or by Catholic tradition as to what kind 
of sins is forgiven. As a result it is quite certain that mortal 
sins come within the scope of the remissory power of the sacra- 
ment. This follows logically from the raison d’etre of the 
Sacrament, which was instituted by a benign Savior to furnish 
the Christian in danger of death with every needful help. It 
is not unusual that a sick man cannot confess, yet he places no 
obstacle to the infusion of grace into his soul thru a sacrament. 
To such a one Extreme Unction becomes the pillar of salva- 
tion.5 

3 Ibid, can. 2. 
4 Of, Euchologion of Serapio, pp. 53 & 118; Sacramentarium Gelasianum, 
‘6 Missa Chrismalis in Feria V Maj. Hebdom.,’’ apud M. P. L., 


74, 1100. 
5 Cf. Suarez, disp. XLI, s. 1, n. 16. 


30 Extreme Unction 


It is the more common opinion that one unable to receive 
Penance should, if physically possible, prepare himself for Ex- 
treme Unction by a perfect act of contrition. It is argued 
that this Sacrament is the complement of Penance, which puts 
one in the state of grace; and consequently every effort must be 
spent to attain as nearly as possible the state of soul ordinarily 
resulting from the reception of Penance. Yet though remission 
of sins is not the primary purpose of Extreme Unction—and 
this is evident from the conditional way that St. James speaks 
about it—nevertheless this effect is attributed per se and directly 
to the Unction. This means nothing less than that Extreme 
Unction is from direct institution, although secondarily, a sacra- 
ment of the dead, capable not only of increasing but also of 
conferring sacramental sanctifying grace. This is not an en- 
trenchment on the sacrament of Penance, as Pohle-Preuss® would 
have it. The obligation of submitting all grievous sins to the 
power of the keys still holds, if the patient recovers sufficiently 
to make his confession. 

Consequently, if the subject is for any reason at all excused 
from confession or from eliciting an act of contrition, Extreme 
Unction will bestow first grace, provided he is actually or at 
least habitually attrite. Habitual attrition is nothing more 
than an act of sorrow for sins committed, elicited after their 
commission and not revoked. Billot’ is somewhat less exacting 
in his requirements of the sick man. He contends that there 
is no obligation to elicit an act of perfect contrition, but that 
attrition cum voto Poenitentiae suffices. He bases his eonten- 
tion on the fact that Extreme Uncetion per se and ex proprio 
suo fine acts in the same fashion as the other two sacraments of 
the dead. Schell® goes even further, saying that a sinner no 
longer capable of an act of contrition or attrition, can validly 
receive Extreme Unction, provided he places no obstacle to 
grace by final impenitence. It is enough to have a general pur- 
pose and intention—a purpose that can be had even while sin- 
ning—of afterwards formally repenting and dying in the friend- 
ship of God. These two opinions are singular, and are not 


6 The Sacraments, vol. IV, p. 32. 

7 De Eccl. Sacramentis, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’? thesis XXVI, t. II, p. 240, 
nota. 

8 Katholssche Dogmatik, III, p. 629 sqq. 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 31 


supported by the vast majority of theological minds. It seems 
only too reasonable that the subject be required to take at 
least ordinary means to dispose himself by an act of perfect 
contrition for a sacrament primarily of the living. It is to be 
noted, however, that the subject is not bound to confess before 
receiving Extreme Unction. There is no divine or ecclesiastical 
precept exacting this. It is only required that one should place 
himself in the state of grace.® 


It is none the less true that if a man is unable or is too 
ignorant to elicit an act of perfect contrition or mistakes attri- 
tion for perfect contrition, he is justified thru Extreme Unction, 
provided he is at least habitually attrite. Yet there is no re- 
mission without attrition, despite Schell’s opinion, for the 
Council of Trent!® explicitly demands sorrow for all forgive- 
ness of sin. 


If Extreme Unction remits mortal sins, a fortiori it remits 
venial sins. Qui potest plus, potest etiam et minus in eadem 
specie. There has been no doubt of its efficacy in this regard 
in the minds of theologians, but there has been much discussion 
regarding the dispositions of the subject necessary for such 
remission. 


Clericatus!! claims that venial sins are remitted ex opere 
operato without any needful cooperation on the part of the sick 
person. According to him, it is quite sufficient to have no 
formal complacency in them. Vasquez!” requires in the subject 
formal or virtual attrition. Suarez! is content with requiring 
non-complacency in the sin and a desire of receiving this sacra- 
ment and its effects. Gonet,!4 St. Bonaventure, and not a few 
Thomists and Scotists teach a mediate remission of sins thru 
the excitation of acts of devotion, love, ete. From the maze 


9 Cf. Infra, chap. VII, p. 232 sqq. 

10 Sess. XIV, De Poenttent., can. 4. 

11 Decisiones Sacramentales, De Extr. Unct., decis. 82, n. 5: ‘‘Sicut 
Baptismus ex opere operato et ex sui institutione delet culpam 
originalem in pueris absque ulla dispositione subjecti tunc existentis 
in infantili aetate, ita servata proportione [facit] ... hoc Sacra- 
mentum Extremae Unctionis.’’ 

12 Comm. in III p. D. Thom., q. 87, a. 3, dub. 3, n. 8. 

18) Disp. kul, sn.) 21. 

14 Clypeus Theol. Thomisticae, tom. VI, tr. 5, disp. 4, n. 59. 

15 Comm. in Lib. Quartum Sent., dist. 23, a. 1, q. 1, conel. 3. 


pe Extreme Unction 


of conflicting claims, Kern!® culls three very reasonable conclu- 
sions, which seem to rest on firm reasons: 

1. The venial sins of a man who also is in mortal sin are 
remitted immediately vi sacramenti, if the subject have at least 
habitual attrition; 

2. The venial sins of a just man are immediately remitted, 
if he elicited for them a certain attrition which per se may not 
measure up to that required for obtaining their pardon without 
a sacrament ; 

3. If Extreme Unction does not remove venial sins immedi- 
ately ob defectum dispositionis, nevertheless it forgives them 
indirectly by producing the necessary dispositions. 


2. The Remission of Temporal Punishment. 


An investigation into the end of Extreme Unction leaves 
no doubt that Extreme Unction remits temporal punishment. 
It was instituted for the perfect healing of the soul with a 
view to its immediate entrance into glory, unless indeed the 
all-knowing Master of Life and Death should deem the restora- 
tion of bodily health more expedient. Consequently it must 
accomplish the removal of all disabilities, it must render us fit 
to enter our heavenly home without delay. Were this not so, 
it would be absurd to say that the sacrament is ‘‘consummativum 
spiritualis curations.’’* Nor could it be said with any more 
truth that this sacrament is the complement of Penance. Since 
Penance usually leaves unforgiven some of the reatus poenae, 
and since Extreme Unction completes and rounds out the purg- 
ing of Penance, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the guilt 
left unforgiven by Penance must be obliterated by Unction. 
Every obstacle to eternal glory not removed by Penance must 
be destroyed by the potent graces of Extreme Unction in the 
march of the soul towards heaven. 

Many theologians are loath to admit this effect at all. They 
fear that it will do away with the raison d’etre of Purgatory and 
of suffrages for the dead. But there is not a single solid argu- 
ment that can be advanced against this view, if the exigencies 
of polemical controversies are subordinated to the Catholic 


16 Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 186-7. 
17 St. Thomas, Summa Contra Gent., lib. 4, c. 738, de Ext. Unct. 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 33 


theory. The truth of the matter is that it was only under the 
enervating influence of the Protestant Reformation that the 
doctrine began to wane. It was clearly propounded in earlier 
rituals and in the writings of the pre-Tridentine theologians up 
to Richard Tapper.!® The insistence of post-Reformation 
Catholic theologians on the existence of Purgatory had the 
drastic effect of an attenuation of the traditional teaching on 
this point. The Jansenistic spirit that infected many with 
rigoristic views of divine justice and vengeance aided to stifle 
for a time this older and truer view. Theologians forgot that 
Extreme Unction remitted temporal punishment and preserved 
the soul from Purgatory, and as a consequence many authors 
do not even mention the question. At last, however, the tradition 
is arising from the lamentable desuetude into which it had un- 
fortunately fallen. Kern’? in his remarkable treatise success- 
fully vindicates to this sacrament its glorious prerogative. 
Schmitz,2° who wrote twenty years earlier, had barely men- 
tioned this effect, but today theologians are allying themselves 
in huge numbers with Fr. Kern.*4 


This doctrine must not be construed to mean that infallibly 
the remission of the entire temporal debt occurs when Extreme 
Unetion is received. Often the subject blocks the completeness 
of the effect by defective and impeding dispositions. But if the 
subject has in every way the correct disposition and devotion? 
it must be conceded that he receives ‘‘plenissimam poenarum 
relaxationem.’’ Furthermore, this view does not militate 
against the utility of indulgences or of Masses for the dead; 
nor does it usurp the prerogative of martyrdom. The uncer- 
tainty of our knowledge concerning the real dispositions of the 
sick man leave little escape from the obligation in charity to 


18 Buchberger, Kirchliches Handlexicon, S. v. 
19 Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 189-91. 
20 De Effect. Ext. Unct., p. 80. 
21 Cf. Toner—Catholic Encycl., art. ‘‘Extreme Unction;’’ Pohle-Preuss, 
The Sacraments, vol. IV, p. 27; Vermeersch, Th. M., III, 650. 
22 Pierrot (Theologie Morale, col. 1075) recommends the following dis- 
positions for the fruitful reception of Extreme Unction: 
1. Une foi ferme et une confiance entiére en Jésus Christ—‘‘oratio 
fidei salvabit infirmum.’’ 
. Un amour ardent pour Dieu. 
. La contrition au moins imparfaite. 
. Enfin une grande résignation en la volenté de Dieu, voit qu’il 
donne la mort. 


He Co bo 


34 . Extreme Unction 


pray for him. Besides, it is positively wrong to assert that 
temporal punishment can be remitted only thru indulgences. 


Again Extreme Unction differs from martyrdom in so far as | 


martyrdom does not depend for its blessed effect on the dispo- 
sitions of the subject. It is the peculiar privilege of martyrs 
to go straightway to bliss, no matter how imperfect the disposi- 
tions have been.?3 


It is truly consoling to have this truth restored to its proper 
eminence in theology. A realization of its immense conse- 
quences should sharpen the clergy to zeal in the ministration and 
reception of this channel of grace. It should become a sweet 
solace to sorrowing survivors to have this further assurance 
that their departed friends have been spared the painful purga- 
torial punishments. It should be a spur to those in charge 
of the sick to summon the priest in opportune time, just as it 
‘should be a reproach to those who delay the call until the death- 
rattle has been heard. It should stimulate us to pray for its 
worthy and devotional reception, since we know that its ob- 
ject is “‘ut anima aeque pura sit post obitum ac infantis qui 
statim post baptismum moritur.’’*4 


3. The Confortatio Animae. 


The approach of death with its distressing pains, its phy- 
sical prostration and mental disquietude, is truly an appalling 
time. A thousand perplexities beset the sick man; a thousand 
temptations assail him.*° The devil empties his resources in 


23 Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 191. 

24 Poentt. Egberti Hborac., sb. I, cap. 4—M. P. L., 89, 416. 

25 St. Gregory the Great describes this very graphically (Moral., 1. XXIV, 
ce. li, ‘‘In cap. xxiii Beati Job’’—M. P. L., 76, 305): ““Saepe 
electis etiam nolentibus in cogitatione subrepitur, quod in se quidem 
solerter inspiciunt et ante Dei oculos, quanti sit reatus, attendunt; 
et cum de his omnibus semper judicia districta pertimescant, tunc 
tamen haec vehementer metuunt, cum ad solvendum humanae condi- 
tionis debitum venientes districto judici appropinquare se cernunt. 
Et fit tanto timor acrior, quanto et retributio aeterna vicinior. Ante 
oculos autem cordis nihil inane tune transvolat de phantasmate cogi- 
tationis, quia subductis e medio omnibus se et illum tantum con- 
siderant cui appropinquant. Crescit pavor vicina retributione justi- 
tiae, et urgente solutione carnis, quanto magis districtum judicium 
jamjamque quasi tangitur tanto vehementius formidatur. Et Si ea, 
quae sciunt se nunquam praetermisisse, meminerunt, formidant tamen 
illa, quae nesciunt, quia videlicet semetipsos dijudicare et compre- 
hendere omnino non possunt, atque urgente exitu subtiliori terrentur 
metu. Unde Redemptor noster solutioni carnis appropinquans et 


; 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction ey 


an effort to snare his weakened victim. Reason itself declares 
the appropriateness of a heavenly antidote against the evils and 
the horrors of that fearful hour. 


Not only reason, however, but Scripture also assures us of 
the existence of this opportune aid. ‘‘Et alleviabit eum 
Dominus,’’ St. James wrote. In the face of the tremendous 
issue, Extreme Unction becomes our firm protection. It renders 
us secure from mortal sin, it remits all venial sin, it comforts 
and strengthens the soul in its trust of God’s mercy, it saves 
the soul from the traps of the tempter, it sustains the sick 
person with solace and soothing, it fortifies him in the last as- 
saults that he must withstand in his warfare for eternal salva- 
tion—in a word, it carries him thru the ‘‘valley of the shadow 
of death’’ into the kingdom of God. 


4. The Restitution of Bodily Health. 


It is a doctrine of our faith that one of the effects of 
Extreme Unction is the restoration of bodily health, if recovery 
is expedient for the goul’s welfare. It is embodied in the fol- 





membrorum suorum servans speciem factus in agonia prolixius 
orabat. Quid enim pro se ille, cum in agonia esset, peteret, qui in 
terris positus caelestia cum potestate tribuebat? Sed appropinquante 
morte nostrae mentis in se certamen expressit, qui vim quamdam 
terroris ac formidinis patimur, cum per solutionem carnis aeterno 
propinquamus judicio. Neque enim tune cujuslibet anima immerito 
terretur, quando post pusillum hoc invenit, quod in aeternum non 
possit. Consideramus quippe quod viam vitae praesentis nequaquam 
sine culpa transire potuimus, consideramus etiam, quia nec hoc 
quidem sine aliquo reatu nostro est, quod laudabiliter gessimus, si 
remota pietate judicemur. Quis enim nostrum vitam praecedentium 
Patrum valeat vel superare vel assequif. Et tamen David dicit: 
‘Ne intres in judicium cum servo tuo, quia non justificabitur in 
conspectu tuo omnis vivens’ (Ps. 142, 2). Paulus cum diceret: 
‘Nihil mihi conscius sum,’ caute subjunxit: ‘Sed non in hoc justi- 
ficatus sum’ (I Cor. IV, 4). Jacobus dicit: ‘In multis enim offen- 
dimus omnes’ (Jac. III, 2). Joannes dicit: ‘Si dixerimus quia 
peccatum non habemus, ipsi nos seducimus et veritas in nobis 
non est’ (I Joan. I, 8). Quid ergo facient tabulae, si tremunt 
columnae? Aut quomodo virgulta immobilia stabunt, si hujus pavoris 
turbine etiam cedri quatiuntur? Solutioni ergo carnis appropin- 
quans nonnumquam terrore vindictae etiam justi anima turbatur.’’ 

In the proemium (Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct.) the Council of Trent 
wrote: ‘‘Nam etsi adversarius noster occasiones per omnem viam 
quaeret et captet, ut devorare animas nostras quoquo modo possit; 
nujlum tamen tempus est quo vehementius ille omnes suae versutiae 
nervos intendat ad perdendos nos penitus et a fiducia etiam, si possit, 
divinae misericordiae deturbandos, quam cum impendere nobis exitum 
vitae perspicit.’’ 


36 Extreme Unction 


lowing words of the Council of Trent: ‘‘The thing here sig- 
nified is the grace of the Holy Ghost; Whose anointing..... 
raises up and strengthens the soul of the sick person, by exciting 
in him a great confidence in the divine mercy; whereby the sick 
being supported...... at times obtains bodily health, when 
expedient for the welfare of the soul.’’26 

As usual theologians, though unanimous in their teaching 
of the actuality of the effect, are widely divided in their opinions 
regarding the conditions on which this effect depends and the 
mode in which it is produced. Not a few,2’ influenced by the 
language of the Council, hold that health will not be restored 
unless it is foreseen that a longer life will lead to a ereater 
degree of glory, thus making recovery a sign of predestination. 
It is hard to admit this. It would imply that a real revelation 
of predestination has been made by God to the subject ; it would 
release him from the injunction of the Apostle to work out his 
salvation in fear and trembling. It would also insinuate that 
those who died after Unction would have become worse and 
might have even perished eternally, had they been returned to 
health. Moreover it makes the fruit of the sacrament dependent, 
not upon the actual state of the recipient’s soul at the time of 
Uncetion, but upon his doings at some time in the future—an inad- 
missible hypothesis, for the sacraments act ‘‘ad modum eausarum 
necessariarum.’’28 

Another opinion is advanced by Suarez,29 Tanner,®° Syl- 
vester Maurus*! and others. They hold that restitution of bodily 
health does not infallibly follow even when expedient for the 
soul’s salvation, but only when God wills it jurta ordinem 
dwinae sapientiae et providentiae. They stress especially the 
word ‘“‘interdum’’? in the sentence of the Council of Trent 
quoted above. Yet their contention seems foundless, for their 
claim would take this effect from the realms of ‘‘ex opere 
operato’’ and reduce Extreme Unction to a sacramental. 


26 Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct., cap. 2 (Translation by Waterworth, The 
Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, p. 105-06). 

“7 Cf. Gregory of Valencia, Comment. Theol., t. IV, disp. 8, q. 1, Disa: 
Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Theol. Moral., t. V, tr. X, sect. V1,m, 57. 

28 Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 196-7. 

29 Disp. 41, s. 4, n. 5. 

30 De Ext. Unct., qg. 1, dub. 2, n. 48. 

81 Opus Theol., t. III, 1. 13, f.200, len 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 37 


Indeed, there are not wanting theologians who claim that 
this effect is not ex opere operato, but simply that of a sacra- 
mental.22 Yet such an opinion ceases to be tenable when it 1s 
remembered that sacramentals are of ecclesiastical institution, 
sacraments of divine institution. Moreover, such a doctrine 
is absolutely alien to all patristic traditions. 


An odd theory was proposed by Dominic Soto.*? He held 
that corporal sanation was not an immediate effect of the sacra- 
ment, but that the sick man receives thru the sacrament some 
supernatural aid for recovering health. This aid is given in 
some certain quantity and proportion always and infallibly. 
When, therefore, health does not follow, it must be ascribed to 
the fact that the aid given was not sufficient to produce its effect 
on account of the virulence of the disease. Though Soto is not 
to be condemned so strongly as Suarez®+ imagines, nevertheless 
he is wrong when he attaches to Extreme Unction a certain de- 
termined amount of sanative power which is always imparted 
to the body regardless of its expediency or inexpediency for the 
health of the soul. 


Still another opinion holds that Extreme Unction liberates 
from a disease, if such liberation is ‘‘ad animae salutem et sine 
miraculo fieri potest.’’> It seems, however, that it is a little 
too much to assert the utter inability of Extreme Unction to 
liberate from a disease which would otherwise result in death, if 
such liberation were for the soul’s salvation. 


Kern** gives a quite logical explanation of the matter. Ac- 
cording to him, the alleviation of the soul exercises an influence 
on the body, whence a corporal alleviation follows, which can 
be so great that health is restored. Since, however, Extreme 
Unction has a principal effect, viz., the comforting of the soul, 
it can reasonably be concluded that corporal alleviation thru 
Extreme Unction takes place when and in so far as it is ex- 
pedient for the perfect healing of the soul. This alleviation and 


32 Of. Estius, Comm. in Lib. Quartum Sent., dist. 23, paragr. 5, tom. 1 
page 289B. 

33 Comm. in Lib. Quartum Sent., dist. 23, q. 1, a. 2, conel. 5. 

34 Disp. 41, s. 4, n. 4. 

35 Tournely, Praelect. Theol. De Septem Sac., ‘‘De Extr. Unct.,’’ qu. 
ultima, a. 1, quaestiune. 7. 

86 Tract. de Extr. Unct., pp. 205-15. 


38 Extreme Unction 


the consequent cure never occurs when the sickness is not a 
punishment for sin. 


5. The Principal Effect of Extreme Unction. 


Since the days of Scholasticism it has been hotly debated 
which of the above mentioned effects is the principal one. 
i\Thomists, treading the trail of their Angelic Master,37 say that 
‘the confortatio anvmae is the principal effect. Allied with them 
are Gregory of Valencia,®® Suarez,?® Becanus,#? Tanner,# 
Abelly,*# Alphonsus de Liguori,*? Lehmkuhl,*4 Simar*® and 
Schmitz.*® The Scotists, on the other hand, cling tenaciously 
to the doctrines of the Doctor Subtilis, viz., that the principal 
ieffect of Extreme Unction is the final remission of venial sins. 
iDe Sainte-Beuve,*7 Sambovius,*® Tournely,?? St. Bonaventure,°° 
Frassen °! and Mastrius *? accede to this view of the Master. 
Still other theologians, like Estius,5? Berti54 and Herman," say 
that all the above-mentioned effects are equally principal and 
primary. Oriental theologians™ surprisingly give corporal cure 
as the chief effect of this sacrament. The conflict of opinions 
has been so involved that many theologians have refused to at- 
tempt a decision and have contented themselves with merely 
recounting the opinions of the disputants.57 


37 Suppl., q. xxx, a. 1. 

38 GEREN Theol., t. IV, disp. 8. 

39 Disp. 41, s. 1, n. 11, sqq. 

40 Theol. Scholast., P. 5, t. 2, cap. 27 (de Eztr. Unct.), q. 6. 

41 Theol. Scholast., t. IV, disp. VII, q. 1, dub. 2. 

42 Medulla Theol., P. 2, tract. 1, cap. 6, (de Eztr. Unct.), sect. 3. 

Ao The oy ia tol. 

S45 TH Meel ysis. 

45 Lehrbuch de Dogmatik, (3 Aufl), S. 790. 

46 De Eff. E. U., pp. 64-9. 

47 De Sac. Ext. Unct., disput. V, a. 1—apud Migne, Cursus Theol. Compl. 
vol. 24, col. 98 sqq. 

48 Tract. de Sacr. Ext. Unct., disp. 5, a. 1. 

49 Praelectiones Theol., ‘‘De Ext. Unet.,’’ q. 4. 

50 Comm. in Wb. Quartum Sent., dist. 23, a. 2, q. 2; Breviloquium, P. VI, 
cap. Xi. 

61 De Sac. Ext. Unct., dis. 4,q4.4,n.4. | 

52 Th. M. disp. 22, q. 4, a. 1, n. 52. 

53 Comm. in Lib. Quartum Sent., ad dist. 23, paragr. 4, tom. 4, p. 288A. 

54 De Theol. Discipl., t. VITE 8-35, 230; 

55 Tractatus Theologici in IV Librum Sent., tr. 8, q. 4. 

56 Makarij, ‘ ‘Pravoslavno-dogmaticeskoje bogoslovije,’’ n. 232; Stefan, 
‘*Tainstva i obrjady pravoslavnoj cerkvi,’’ p. 18. 

57 Benedict XIV, De Synod. Dioc., 1. 8, c 7, n. 3; Clericatus, Decisiones 
Sacramentales, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ dec. 82, n. 1, 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 39 


The cause of such a diversity of teaching seems to he in 
the fact that theologians looked at the sacrament in connection 
with certain adjuncts present in the subject. It is easily seen 
that, due to peculiar conditions of various patients, one man 
would be benefited especially by one effect while another would 
be aided principally by another and different effect. For n- 
stance, an unconscious sick man has mortal sins for which he is 
at least habitually attrite. For such a one the remission of sins 
is undoubtedly the most necessary and beneficial effect. Again, 
if God knows that a sick man, when restored to health, would 
eollect for himself a wealth of merit, then surely corporal 
sanation would be for him most expedient. For some, the 
remission of venial sins; for others, the remission of the temporal 
punishment; for still others, the comforting of the soul would 
best avail. Thus an imperfect understanding of what was really 
meant by the principal effect can and actually has led to inter- 
minable disputing and confusion. 

Much progress can be made toward a solution by remember- 
ing that the principal effect is that which by the help of sanctify- 
ing grace is per se induced and thru which all other fruits of 
the sacrament are bestowed. In the light of this fundamental 
definition, the untenability of some of the opinions becomes 
evident. For example, the principal effect of Extreme Unction 
cannot be corporal cure, because health follows from a re- 
dundancy of spiritual grace. This is more apparent when it 
is realized that the principal effect of one and the same sacra- 
ment cannot be specifically different in one subject than in an- 
other. Each sacrament acts ad modum causarum naturalvum, 
and each sacrament is instituted principally for one effect, al- 
though other effects may be obtained thru it. However, the 
degree of dispositions of the subject go far in the determination 
of how well the principal effect is produced. This difference of 
dispositions likewise explains why one secondary effect is coupled 
more intimately with the principal effect in one subject rather 
than in another. But unless the primary effect is the same 
in every subject, the concept of sacrament is destroyed. 


Consequently it is clear that the final remission of venial 
sins is not the principal effect nor the primary end of the sacra- 
ment. In the first place, only those actually dying, not those in 


40 Extreme Unction 


danger of death, would be fit subjects for this sacrament ; because 
the subject must be beyond the capability of sinning. Yet 
such a postponement of the administration of this sacrament 
has been proscribed by many ecclesiastical decrees.°8 Moreover, 
this opinion would hold the reception of Extreme Unction as 
inefficacious in those whose venial sins had been deleted by 
Penance or Viaticum, since one incapable of the principal effect 
of a sacrament is ‘‘incapax sacramenti.’’ A third reason for 
condemnation might be advanced from the fact that those about 
to receive would be bound to procure in themselves the dispo- 
sition necessary to produce the primary effect, in other words, 
they would be bound sub gravi to elicit sorrow for slight sins. 
The absurdity of such a demand is patent. No divine nor 
ecclesiastical law can be produced demanding that all com- 
placence in venial sin be removed for the valid reception of any 
sacrament. 


With equal clarity it can be seen that the principal effect 
of Extreme Unction is not the remission of mortal sins. To 
assert this is to assert that Extreme Unction is primarily a 
sacrament of the dead. Moreover St. James spoke of the re- 
mission of sins in a conditional sense—evidencing the validity 
of administration to those who had no sins. 


Again, the principal effect of Unction is not the remission 
of temporal punishment. Otherwise saints, those who have no 
purgatorial expiation to make, are absolutely incapable of 
validly receiving the sacrament. 


To defend the equality of all effects is quite as preposterous, 
for it entails the production thru one sacramental action of 
several specifically different effects. Extreme Unction would 
then be specificated by at least four different objects. 


It remains to say that the principal effect of this sacrament 
must be the comforting of the soul of the sick man, by which 
it is strengthened against the perils of spiritual debility conse- 
quent upon a disease. This becomes clearer from a considera- 
tion of the subject of the sacrament. A man approaching 
death may be in need of many things. If he is an object of 


68 Cf. e. g., Benedict XV, litt. apost. ‘‘ Sodalitatem,’’ May 31, 1921 (A. A. 
S., XIII, 342); Pius XI—litt. ap. ‘‘Explorata res est’’—Feb. 2, 
1923; (ASA, 85 V,.1038). 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction Al 


divine ire, he needs above all else the remission of his mortal 
sins. He usually needs the remission of his venial sins, lest 
he appear before his Judge in a nuptial garment not wholly 
spotless. He may need condonation of temporal punishment, 
for otherwise, he must be shut from the vision of God, while 
purgatory’s fires purge the dross from his soul. He may need 
something to conquer the horror of human nature at the ap- 
proaching dissolution, to elude the wily traps of the enemy 
so unmercifully annoying him, to stifle the temptations to inordi- 
nate grief, cowardice and desperation, and to face the supreme 
hour with trust and resignation in the divine will. All who are 
nearing death need these aids—yet not all the faithful about 
to die can be helped by Extreme Unction. This Sacrament can 
be given only to those in danger of death from sickness. Hence 
its institution must have been made for the purpose of overcom- 
ing the evils which are conjoined with grave bodily sickness 
and for conferring the benefits which all those in grave illness 
require.°? 

Experience reveals one marked difference between those in 
danger of death from sickness and those in danger of death 
ab extrinseco. The bodily sick manifest a spiritual debility from 
their affliction, a complete prostration of the mental forces as 
a result of the collapse of the inferior powers. From this weak- 
ness there arises an especial difficulty in cooperating with 
eraces conferred thru other supernatural means, a marked re- 
missness in rejecting temptation, a multiple danger of losing 
salvation. Extreme Unction, then, must be a medicine, a celestial 
antidote, against that spiritual weakness that comes with bodily 
infirmity. It must furnish from its very nature an extraordinary 
spiritual fortitude, a vigor of mind and an exhilaration of soul 
which will be eminently suitable to expeditious cooperation with 
grace, As a consequence, every man who has at least a passive 
potency of receiving comfort against that spiritual weakness 
which is conjoined with grave sickness, is capable of a valid 
reception of this sacrament, even if he have no need at all of 
the other fruits or effects. Truly it seems most reasonable to 
say that the principal effect of the Sacrament of Extreme Une- 
tion is ‘‘confortatio animae infirmi.’’ 


59 Of. Suarez, disp. 42, sect. 2, n. 6. 


42 Extreme Unction 


The specific signification of the sacrament corroborates this 
contention. Sacraments effect what they signify. The Unction 
of the sick, then, must effect enlightment of the intellect, and 
consequently consolation, exhilaration, alleviation, strength and 
courage; in a word, all that is included in the meaning of ‘‘con- 
fortatio animae.’’ An examination of patristic quotations is 
all that is required to show the force of this argument.® 


VI. THe PRopPERTIEs. 


This discussion of Extreme Unction has passed logically 
from a discussion of the basic point, viz., its sacramentality, to 
a consideration of its end, its essence and its effects. An investi- 
gation of its properties, i. e., the questions of its unity, its re- 
viviscence and its iterability, should next engross our attention. 
These problems are so intimately interwoven with canonical 
legislation that no treatment of them from a juridical point of 
view can be thorough without a discussion of the dogmatic as- 
pects. To these three problems could be added the question of 
the necessity of Extreme Unction, but this can be fully and more 
properly diseussed in the commentary on Canon 944. 


1. The Unity of Extreme Unction. 


Extreme Unction is, of course, one sacrament. For many 
centuries, however, it has been mooted as to the precise nature 
of this unity. Does it possess a unity of indivisibility, i. e., 
does its sacramental efficacy follow only from the completed rite 
—or does it possess the unity of integrity, i. e., are the single 
unctions partial sacraments, as it were, whose sum total consti- 
tutes one whole sacrament? Intimately and inseparably con- 
nected with this question is also the problem of when the sacra- 
ment produces its effects. 

In the discussion of these two problems there is no re- 
course to Scripture or to Tradition or to dogmatic definitions. 


60 Cf. Eusebius Caesareensis, Demon. Evangel., 1. I V,c. 156—M. P. G., 22, 
294A; 8. Maximus Taurinensis, Exposittones de Capit. Evangel. III 
—M. P. L., 57, 811B; Procopius Gazaeus, In Levit. xziz, 31— 
M. P. G., 87, 702; St. Fulgentius, Ep. 14, n. 42—M. P. L., 65, 430 
B-C; St. Gregory of Nyssa, In Cant. Cant., Hom. IX—M. P. G., 44, 
963A; St. Augustine, Quaest. Evang., l. II, n. 19—M. P. L., 35, 
1340; Euthymius, In textum S. Marci, cap. VI, vers. 12—M. P. ere 
129, 807; St. Isadore of Spain, Quaest. in V. T., in Levit., 0. 5— 
Me Pidsaho aco. 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 43 


It is necessary to depend for the solution to a great extent upon 
theological reasoning. 

There were two great divisions of thought on the matter 
among the ancient theologians. Albertus Magnus, the leader 
on one side, wrote: ‘‘Plures sunt ibi unctiones quae omnes 
uniuntur in uno effectu quem complent; et ideo omnes sunt 
unum sacramentum. Et quod dicitur quod quaelibet est sacra- 
mentum, dicendum quod omnes sunt unum sacramentum, quia 
quaelibet est signum et causa reliquiarum, non secundum partem, 
sed secundum totum omnes simul.’’! St. Thomas,’ Suarez’ and 
many others concur in this view, and the Sixth Council of 
Beneventano‘ included it in its synodal enactments. 


On the other hand the Scotist school held the opposite 
opinion. The Doctor Subtilis himself wrote: ‘‘Est sacramen- 
tum unum quia habet tam unam materiam quam unam formam 
totalem, quae sunt unum signum totale unius effectus totalis, se. 
plenariae innocentiae restitutae per remissionem totalem omnium 
peceatorum venialium. Licet enim plures sint formae partiales 
et multi partiales effectus, ut remissiones peccatorum venialium 
commissorum in parte tali vel tali, ut ore vel manu, tamen una 
est totalis materia et totalis forma, quae sunt signum totale 


1 Comm. ad Lib. IV Sent., a. 17 ad 2 (apud Opera Omnia, vol. XXX, 

. 24). 

3 Bipot: a 30, a. 1 ad 3: ‘Quando sunt multae actiones ordinatae ad 
unum effectum, ultima est formalis respectu omnium praecedentium, 
et agit in virtute earum; et ideo in ultima unctione gratia infunditur, 
quae effectum sacramento praebet.’’ 

Yet, strangely enough, the Angelic Doctor seems to be inconsistent, 
for in the question preceding he writes: ‘‘Quamvis in Eucharistia, 
si post consecrationem panis moritur sacerdos, alius sacerdos possit 
procedere ad consecrationem vini, incipiens ubi ille dimisit, vel etiam 
incipere a capite supra aliam materiam, tamen in extrema unctione 
non potest a capite incipere, sed debet semper procedere, quia unctio 
in eadem parte facta tantum valet, ac si consecraretur bis eadem 
hostia, quod nullo modo faciendum est’’ (Suppl., q. 29, a. 2 ad 3). 
Why would the repetition of the unction be ineffective, if it is not 
impeded by a sacramental effect already present? 

3 Disp. 41, s. 2, n. 12: ‘Vera sententia est, effectum hujus sacramenti 
dari in eo instanti, in quo consummatur essentialiter hoc sacramen- 
tum, consummatur autem, cum primum quinque actiones cum quinque 
formulis perficiuntur.’’ 

4 Tit. 8, c. 3, anno 1374 (apud Catalano, Rst. Rom., t. I, p. 319): ‘‘Licet 
multae fiant ibi inunctiones, ultima tamen est ibi formalis respectu 
omnium praceedentium, et agit in virtute earum, et ideo in ultima 
inunctione gratia infunditur, quae effectum praebet sacramenti. Et 
a unum gacramentum dicitur unitate perfectionis, quae est per 

em. 


44 Extreme Unction 


totalis remissionis et plenariae justificationis ab omni peccato 
veniali.’’> Mastrio writes even more clearly: ‘‘Fundamentum 
praecipuum est, quia quaelibet unctio cum sua forma propria 
effectui proprio respondente, et ad singulas unctiones comple- 
tur sensu substantiali formae; ergo quaevis unctio cum sua 
propria forma est proprium sacramentum gratiam conferens 

. . . Ergo si quaevis unctio cum sua propria forma habet 
proprium significatum partiale ab aliis distinetum, habebit 
etiam suum effeectum proprium partialem ab aliis. condistinc- 
rvs Mit be 


With one or the other of these opinions by far the majority 
of theologians agree. There is no doubt that some of them 
supposed that the five unctions with their respective forms 
were essential for the validity of the sacrament. Yet if this 
supposition were true, the question could never be solved. For 
if Christ constituted the essence of this sacrament in five unce- 
tions, it would be impossible to determine with our lack of 
Scriptural or traditional arguments just what kind of unity 
He wished to attribute to this sacrament. In consequence of 
Canon 947 such a view in regard to the necessity of the five- 
fold form and the five-fold unction is no longer tenable. 


Dominico Soto’ held that a third element played a part in 
the determination of the time of the effects of the sacrament, 
viz., the intention of the minister. According to his theory, 
the Unction has its effect at the time of the completion of the 
last unction, whether such an unction pertain to the sacrament 
essentially or only integrally. The essence of the Sacrament 
consists, by divine law, in the unction of the five senses. The 
Church has added to these the unction of the feet and (in his 
day) the unction of the reins. These two latter anointings 
become integral parts of the Sacrament, and the intention of 
the minister must accordingly be directed to all seven unctions. 
The consequence will be that the conferring of grace will be 
delayed until the seventh anointing is complete. 


This theory is generally rejected—and deservedly, too; for 
a minister cannot bring it to pass by his intention that grace 


5 Report. Paris., 1, IV, dist. 23, q. unic. 
6 Th. M., disp. 22, q. 4, a. 2, n. 64. 
7 Comm. in quart. lib. Sent., t. I, ad dist. XXill, q. 2, a. 3. 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 45 


will not be conferred after the whole essential rite has been 
completed, but that, instead, it will be induced at some future 
moment selected by him either arbitrarily or from a supposed 
command of the Chureh. If such an intention prevailed, nothing 
at all would be effected, for an intention in regard to the 
sacraments may not be ‘‘de futuro’’ (except in Matrimony). 

Other opinions, termed by Kern® as ‘‘singular,’’ teach 
that the whole effect takes place after the first unction; or that 
it follows ordinarily the fifth unction, except in such cases 
where the subject died during the anointment, and then after 
the last unction performed; or that, in case of necessity only, 
one unction with a general form can validly confer the grace 
and fruits of the sacrament, while in all other cases the five 
unctions were absolutely necessary, ete. 

Father Kern® proposes another solution of the question. 
The essence of the sacrament demands neither the unction of 
the five senses nor the five-fold repetition of the form. It is 
necessary and sufficient that the sick man be anointed and that 
the effect which the rite has been divinely intended to produce 
be sought by the prayer of the priest. There is not an iota of 
evidence to prove that Christ instituted five partial sacraments 
which singly cause different grades of grace. The sacrament of 
the ‘‘exeuntium’”’ is as much one sacrament as that of the ‘‘in- 
trantium,’’ Baptism, where a triple ablution is prescribed. 
Moreover the practice of the Greek Church, by which a priest 
performs all the unctions under a single form, weighs strongly 
against the probability of the institution by Christ of a five- 
fold form with a five-fold unction.’° 

With this premise established, Father Kern makes use of 
the third element that Soto brought into the solution of the case. 
Now it is one thing to anoint the sick man, let us say, upon the 
breast, and quite a different thing to anoint the breast of the 
sick man. The former implies that the unction is the primary 
consideration and the place of unction something secondary ; 


8 Tract. De Ext. Unct., p. 327. 
_ 9 Op. cit., pp. 328-9. 

10 Neither this custom nor Canon 947 clinches the question finally. There 
is still the possibility that the Church used its prerogative of chang- 
ing the matter and form of the sacraments. In fact, this very solution 
is proposed by Dr. Walter McDonald in the Irish Theological Quar- 
terly, vol. II, (1907), p. 333. 


46 Extreme Unction 


while the latter connotes the importance of the specific part 
of the body anointed. Consequently, if a priest intends that the 
unction prescribed by St. James is to be performed by a single 
unction (joined, of course, with a general form), then the effect 
of the sacrament is produced after such an unction just as 
certainly as in those Churches,!4 where only one form and one 
unction were required. However, if it is the intention of the 
minister to perform the Jacobean rite by anointing the organs 
designated by his ritual book, and using the particular forms 
prescribed therein, then by his intention such a priest groups 
all these sacramental and sacerdotal actions ‘‘sub aspectu unius’’ 
—and grace follows from the completed rite. 


Applying this theory to the mode of unction defined by 
the Western Church, we get the following conclusions. Each 
form refers, not to the remission of sins as such, but only to 
the forgiveness of sins committed by one particular sense. 
Therefore such an anointment per se is not the rite promul- 
gated by St. James. Moreover, the sins of one sense cannot be 
forgiven while those of another sense are retained. All serious 
sins must be erased at once. Consequently, the Jacobean pre- 
scription is not fulfilled until those unctions and forms are 
performed which would refer to the remission of all gin. If 
the minister did not intend to anoint the feet, then the sacra- 
ment is conferred after the fifth unction, on the grounds that, 
broadly speaking, the senses are the source of every sin. But 
if the priest does not include in any one of these anointments 
a reference to the sins committed “‘ner gressum,’’ because of 
the fact that he intends to perform subsequently a particular 
unction upon the feet, it is only after this additional unction 
that the rite is complete, and the effect is produced. If the 
minister does not advert to these distinctions, but merely in- 
tends to do as the Church does, Father Kern thinks it probable 
that the sacrament is conferred after the fifth unction, because 
the anointments of the five senses include sufficiently within 
their remissory scope all the sins committed by the subject. 


Rites other than the western procedure must be viewed 


11 As e. g., in the Coptic rite—Denziger, Rit. Orient., t. I, p. 186 and 
similarly in the ancient Mozarabic rite—apud Monumenta Eccl. 
Liturgica (ed. Cabrol et Leclerq), vol. v, p. 71. 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 47 


in a similar way. Unless the minister intended to confer the 
sacrament in the first (or in any other) unction, the effect of 
the sacrament does not take place until the very last unction 
is performed. If the minister elicits no specific intention in 
the matter, the discipline of the Church settles the question 
when the essential unctions, necessary to signify the remission 
of all sins contemplated by the Jacobean rite, have been per- 
formed. 

It is easy to see by this theory how the sacrament can be 
confected in ease of necessity with a single unction. It leads 
to this consequence, however, (as shall be seen in treating Canon 
947): all the ceremonies which are ‘‘supplied’’ after the short 
form has been used are not of a sacramental nature. They 
are simply ‘‘sacramentalia,’’ with no effect ‘‘ex opere operato.’’ 

Father Kern’s theory has not met with universal, whole- 
hearted acceptance. Quinn}? thinks it open to the same objec- 
tion as Soto’s opinion. ‘‘It is hard to see,’’ he writes, ‘‘how 
the intention of the minister (if sacramental at all) can suspend 
the effect which the unction signifies.’’ Yet in strictness Father 
Kern does not claim this. What he asserts is that the unction 
of a particular organ with a form which does not refer to for- 
giveness of all sins cannot be per se the rite prescribed by St. 
James. It is the wording of the form which circumscribes the 
effect of the rite, not the intention of the minister. When the 
various unctions together with the several forms cumulatively 
refer to the forgiveness of all sins, then and only then is the 
Jacobean prescription fulfilled. What Father Kern claims that 
the minister’s intention does effect is this, viz., that even 
if the forgiveness of all the sins would be amply referred to by 
any series of unctions, as, for example, those of the five senses, 
nevertheless, if the priest specifically excepts the sins commit- 
ted by any other particular part of the body, then the unction 
of such a particular part is essential to complete the rite of 
St. James. 

Dr. McDonald!’ is not at all pleased with this theory of 
Kern’s. He holds the Scotist view, claiming the Sacrament 
to be composed of five partial sacraments. The breaking up of 


12 Some Aspects of the Dogma of Extreme Unctwn, p. 76. 
18 Trish Theological Quarterly, vol. II (1907), p. 333. 


48 Extreme Unction 


the Jacobean rite into these partial unctions was done by the 
authority of the Church, who can change to some extent the 
matter and form of the sacraments. Hither the exercise of this 
power must be allowed here, or, he says, ‘‘you must fall back 
on the intention of the minister, empowering him to alter the 
signification of the words he utters, and thereby make certain 
rites sacramental or merely ceremonial according as he intends 
the form to cover and remit all sins or only those of a certain 
class .. . I cannot help regarding it as much more probable 
that it was by Church authority the character of Order was 
divided . . . and according to the same analogy each of the 
Seven unctions should be regarded as a distinct sacrament, all 
combining to form a generic whole, which once constituted in 
its fulness, cannot any more than the sacrament of Order be 
repeated while its lasts.’’ 

In answer to Kern’s argument that the form of a parti- 
cular unction is deficient because its refers to the sins com- 
mitted by a single organ and no species of sin can be remitted 
separately, Dr. McDonald argues that, since the form of each 
of the unctions signifies some remission of sin, each unction 
must be “‘capable of infusing grace, which is the test of true 
sacramental efficacy.’’ The naming of special sins in these forms 
is done simply because of the actual graces infused for help 
against temptations to these particular sins, and for the re- 
mission of the temporal punishment due to such transgressions. 

The promulgation of Canon 947 made Noldin alter his opin- 
ion in regard to this question. Prior to the Code, he insisted 
that the last unction brought with it the sacramental grace.}4 
In his latest, edition of the Moral Theology, he reveals his re- 
versal of viewpoint. Now he thinks that the essential graces 
of the sacrament are given in the first anointment. The sub- 
Sequent unections supplement and perfect this effect by the infu- 
sion of actual graces and by the increase of sanctifying grace, 
if the dispositions of the patient become better thru the stimula- 
tion of the unction or unctions already received.15 


This view is very popular with present-day theologians. 


14 Th. M., De Sac., n. 446 (editio septima—1908), 
15 Th. M., De Sac., n. 431 (editio quarta decima—1921). 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 49 


Lehmkuhl,!® Tanquerey-Quevastre,!* Vermeersch-Creusen!® sub- 
scribe to it heartily. Its practical application lies in the value 
of repeating or ‘‘supplying”’ the unctions in a case where the 
short form is used. Logically this question falls under the 
treatment of Canon 947, and will be dealt with at that time. 


The time when the special effects occur presents some 
difficulties. A) Mortal sins are immediately remitted with the 
infusion of sanetifying grace whether this happen after the first 
unction or after the last. This also accomplishes the pardon of 
venial sins and condones temporal punishment, according to 
the disposition of the penitent. B) If the use of reason has 
not been snatched away by unconsciousness or insanity, super- 
natural aids are also imparted immediately, which bestow com- 
fort and alleviation and induce a feasibility of co-operation 
with the impulses of grace. C) These comforting and sustain- 
ing graces perdure thru sickness until death or recovery. 
D) Since corporal health arises from the redundaney of spiri- 
tual comfort—and since much depends on the nature and the 
seriousness of the disease—the effect is obtained differently in 
different subjects. That some alleviation very often instantly 
appears, is a fact of experience. 


2, Revwiscence. 


The problem of reviviscence confronts us when a sacra- 
ment has been validly received, but remains ‘‘informe’’ because 
of the lack of due dispositions in the recipient. When rightly 
administered, Extreme Unction confers a title to sanctifying 
grace and to all other aids expedient for the sick man. But 
it happens sadly enough that sometimes the recipient places an 
obstacle to one or more of the special graces that the sacrament 
confers, or even to the infusion of first grace itself. It then 
becomes of paramount importance to look into the powers of 
reviviscence of this potent sacrament. 

The ‘‘obex’’ or ‘‘fictio’’ which impedes the effects of the 
sacraments is either formal or material. The former is pres- 
ent when a man, conscious of his improper dispositions, know- 


16 Th, M., IT, 718. 

17 Brev. Syn. Th. u,, n. 1260B. 

18 Epitome, II, 231. 

19 Cf. Infra, chapter xii, p. 386 sqq. 


50 Extreme Unction 


ingly receives the sacrament. The latter occurs when the ‘‘obex”’ 
is inculpable—a case easily imaginable, as, for example, when 
the subject has been suddenly struck down to unconsciousness. 


Theologians propound it as the more probable opinion that, 
“‘remoto obice,’? Extreme Unction does revive, whether the 
“‘fiction’’ be material or formal.2° The moral dispositions of 
a subject affect the validity of no sacrament except Penance. 
Moreover, the valid administration of a sacrament surely accom- 
plishes something in the recipient. Surely, too, that ‘‘some- 
thing’’ can be nothing else than the title to sanctifying grace 
and the right to the other fruits, on the condition that the defec- 
tive disposition be removed. Were this not true, there would 
be no difference between the valid and the invalid reception of 
a sacrament. 


On the other hand, there is no valid reason for denying the 
reviviscence of Extreme Unction. It is admitted in the Sacra- 
ments of Baptism, of Confirmation, and of Orders. It is the 
more probable opinion in regard to Matrimony because of the 
permanence of the sacrament. Certainly one who has been 
validly anointed needs the effects of the sacrament thru revivi- 
scence. He cannot be, as a general rule, licitly reanointed—and 
yet it seems alien to the divine benignity to derive him of 
such benefits because of his former temerity, or perhaps only 
misfortune or ignorance. Such a subject is far more in need 
of Extreme Unction’s effects than one who has prepared him- 
self well for its worthy reception. Since Extreme Unction can- 
not be repeated in the same illness unless it is a prolonged one, 
such deprivation of the effects otherwise obtainable thru revivi- 
scence would be disastrous. 


Some theologians have gone to fanciful excesses in grant- 
ing this reviving efficacy to Extreme Unction. De Lugo?? at- 
tributed to it the power of remitting venial sins after death. 
Suarez*? thought it probable that the efficacy of the anointing 
extended beyond the restoration of health. Didacus Nugnus, 
O. P.,*4 asserted it to be certain that, even after health had 


20 Cf. Hurter, Th. D. Comp., III, n. 306; Tanquerey, Th. D., III, n. 321. 
21 Cf. Rit. Rom., tit. V, cap. I) n. 8; ef. infra, chap. V, p. 192 sqq. 

22 De Sacramentis in Genere, disp. IX, sect. 6, vers. finem (n. III). 

23 Disp. 41, s. 1, n. 24. 

24 Expositio in III p. D. Thomae, suppl., q. 30, a. I, 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 51 


been regained, if the ober were not until then removed, sanctify- 
ing grace—and also the other spiritual effects—would follow. 
Surely this seems stretching the powers of reviviscence too far. A 
healthy man is ineapable of receiving grace ‘‘qua alleviatio;’’ 
and since this is the sacrament’s principal effect, he is incap- 
able of every other effect. 

What is required for reviviscence in the several cases may 
be summed up as follows: 


a) If the fiction is material and no new grave sin is com- 
mitted since the reception of Extreme Unction, it suffices that 
the sick man do what should per se have been before unction. 
There is no defect present other than ‘‘defectus dispositionis ab 
wnitio,’’ 

b) If the fiction is material and a grave sin has been 
committed since the anointing, attrition with sacramental abso- 
lution or perfect contrition is required. 


¢) If the fiction is formal, the sacrament of Penance or 
perfect contrition is necessary. If the obex is removed by Pen- 
ance, then the infusion of grace occurs ‘‘ex duplici fonte,’’ i. e., 
directly from the sacrament of Penance and by reviviscence in 
the sacrament of Extreme Unction.?® 


3. The Iterabality. 
Theologians all agree on the permissibility of repeating Ex- 
treme Unction in the following circumstances: 
1. When the infirm man has been restored to health and 
falls again into a mortal disease, no matter how short the period 
of time between the sicknesses ; 


2. In the same sickness, if the danger of death passes 
after the Unction has once been given and the sick man relapses 
into a new danger of death. The reason alleged is that, just as 
a person whose sickness is not at least probably fatal has no 
right to the sacrament, so a man whose danger of death has 
receded completely does not retain any title to the benefits that 
the sacred unction confers. For verification of this recession 
and recurrence of a dangerous state, many theologians demand 
the lapse of some period of time—a not unreasonable exaction, 


25 Cf. Kern. Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 377-8; Tanquerey, Th. D., III, nu. 
323; Aertnys, Th. M. II, n. 354. 


52 Extreme Unction 


if too much strictness is not insisted upon in the measurement 
of that time. St. Bonaventure wisely observed: ‘‘Absurdum 
valde videtur sacramenta regulari secundum motum astro- 


Tits 

Some theologians, as shall be seen in the discussion of 
Canon 940, 2, teach that if a man is anointed in imminent 
danger of death which subsequently passes away, whereby the 
man is somewhat relieved although not beyond the remote dan- 
eer of death, another anointing may be made if the crisis again 


appears.?4 

By far the great majority of theologians deny the validity 
of Extreme Unction when repeated in the same danger of death. 
Among contemporary writers, however, Kern*® holds as prob- 
able the opinion maintaining the validity of repeated unction 
in the same danger of death. He is not alone in his contention, 
but is rather one of the more recent adherents to an authorita- 
tive band of positive sacramental theologians. The most emi- 
nent members of this group are Menardus,?? Launoi,?° Mar- 
tene,2! Juenin,?? Drouven,*? Bouget,?4 Catalano, Pellicia,*® 
Binterim,?7 Telch?® and Vermeersch.*?* Other theologians*? 
were convinced by the practices of the ancient Greeks that 
repetition of the Unction in the same danger of death was un- 
doubtedly valid. Some, like Billuart,*! Gerbert** and Schanz,* 
did not dare to brand as invalid the ancient custom. Finally, 


26 Comm. in IV lib. Sent., ad dist. xxiii, a. 2, q. 4 ad 2. 
27 Cf. infra, chapter V, p. 192. 
28 Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 338-63. 
29 In Notis ad Lib. Sacr. 8S. Greg. —M. P. L., 78, 523C. 
30 Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 548 sqq. 
31 De Antiq. Eccl. Rit., 1. I, cap. 7, art. 2, n. 15. 
32 Comm. Hist. et Dog. de Saer., d. 7, q. 9, ¢. I. 
33 De Re Sacramentaria, |. vii, q. 5, ¢. 2. 
34 Instit. Cathol. in modum Catecheseos, ec. VII, paragr. 3. 
35 Rit. Rom., t. I, pp. 303-4. 
36 De Christ. Ecc. Politia, t. II, 1. 6, s. 2, ¢. 3, paragr. 2, p. 479. 
37 Denkwiirdigkeiten, 6 B, 3 T., 3 K., paragr. 9. 
38 Eptt. Th. M., ‘‘Sententiae Probabiles’’—de E. U.—p. 415-6. 
39 Th. M., III, 666. 
40 Wirceburgenses, De Ext. Unct., ec. 2, a. 3, §“Dico’’ 3: 
Dog., De E. U., qu. ult., a. 2, “‘ quaeres?? 2. 8 
41 Summa S. Thomae, De Ext. Unct., disp. unic, a. 7, ‘Petes’? tertio.- 
42 Principia Th. Sac., c. VI, paragr. 78. 
43 Die Lehre von der Sakramenten, p. 661. 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 53 


since the days of Benedict XIV,** moralists*® have counselled 
against over-strictness in the refusal to repeat the sacrament 
in lingering illnesses. 

Convincing texts from old rituals, such as the Gregorian 
Sacramentary,*® the Ordo of Rheims,** the Codex of the Mon- 
astery of St. Remigius,*® the Codex Tilianus*? and many 
others,°° show that it was the custom from the early ages down 
to twelfth century to confer Extreme Unction on seven suc- 
cessive days. Instances of the actual fulfillment of this ritual- 
istic prescription are also extant.°! 


Kern adduces authorities to show that the Greek ceremony 
of Extreme Unction, wherein seven priests anoint by going thru 
the entire formula, is but a development of the pristine practice 
of anointing on seven different days.°* Surely the ceremony 
given in the Euchologion ** does not seem arranged for a single 
visitation to the sick.. For example, in the beginning of the 
ceremony a very solemn blessing of the oil is performed by the 
first priest who is to anoint—and that very same oil is used im 
the unctions by all the priests. Yet the second and the third 
and the fourth and the fifth and the sixth and the seventh 
priests bless it again individually, as though it were profane, 
before they proceed in turn to anoint the sick man. It does 
not seem that such could be the original practice. It is more 
logical to view this as a development of the custom in the early 
church to anoint for seven successive days. According to Malt- 
zew,°4 the Coptic liturgy witnesses to this practice even today. 
Denziger,°> however, speaks of a single unction made by a 


44 De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, ¢c. 8, n. 4, in fine. 

45 St. Alph., Th. M., VI, 715; AErtnys, Th, M., IT, 368 ad TIL; Lehmkuhl, 
Th. M., Il, 725; Scavini, Th M., III, 442; Gury, Th. M., II, 691. 

46 M. P. L., 78, 537. 

47 Martene, op. cit., 1. 1, ¢. 7, a. 4, Ordo 8. 

48 M. P. L., 78, 537B. 

49 M. P. L., 78, 528C—cf. ibid., 20, 22. 

50 KE. g., Pont. of Salisburgo (Salzburg), apud Martene, l.c., Ordo XII: 
Codex Victorinus, Ordo XIX; Codex Turonensis, Ordo IV; ete. 

51 E. g., Vita S. Remberti, Acta SS., Feb. 4, p. 571. 

52 Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 345-50. 

53 A Latin translation of the Greek ceremony is given in Martene, ‘‘ De 
Antiq. Ecc. Rit.,7’ V. 1, c. 7, 3.4, Ordo XXX: 

54 Die Sacramente, p. CCCXXAXIT. 

55 Rit. Orient., t. II, p. 501 ss.—cef. t. I, p. 187 ss. 


54 Extreme Unction 


priest, and the unctions on the following days made by the 
sick man himself. 

The declaration of the Council of Trent seems at first face 
to militate very strongly against this proposition. The words 
of the Council are: ‘‘Quod si infirmi, post susceptam hane 
unctionem, convaluerint, iterum hujus sacramento subsidio 
juvari poterunt, cum in aliud simile vitae discrimen incide- 
rint.’’°° Yet Kern %7 shows ably enough the possibility of con- 
struing the Tridentine text in a positive sense, rather than in 
an exclusive sense, i. e., the Council intended to assert the 
walidity of Extreme Unction repeated in the specific circum- 
stances it mentions rather than propose a taxative enumeration 
of the cases of its valid repetition. 

Neither is the present practice an argument against Kern’s 
contention. It can be said to be of a disciplinary rather than 
of a dogmatic nature. Churchmen were only too human in the 
‘Middle Ages—and simony and sacrilege had to be expugned by 
determined legislation. This was the course chosen by the 
Church to end forever the avarice of pastors who demanded 
exorbitant stipends for the administration of the sacrament.®8 

It is the theological reasons of Kern—the ‘‘argumenta ex 
ratione theologica’’—which meet most opposition. Putting his 
terms in the language of the school, he notes that the external 
rite (sacramentum tantum) causes to be produced in the soul a 
reality (res et sacramentum); and with this reality as their 
proximate cause, sanctifying grace and the other gifts of the 
sacrament result (res tantum). Hence it is to the ‘‘effect and 
sacrament’’ (which seems to be the best translation of ‘‘res et 
sacramentum’’), rather than to the mere sacrament that the 
sacramental effect is due. Now in Extreme Unction the ‘‘effect 
and sacrament’’ consists in a right or title to the spiritual com- 
fort and other aids given by this sacrament. As Kern him- 
self puts it: ‘‘In Extrema Unctione res et sacramentum con- 
sistit in titulo sive jure remoto ad confortationem Spiritualem 
et alia auxilia cum illa conjuncta; quod jus in subjecto oritur 
ex efficaci repositione in manu misericordiae divinae.’®9 The 


56 Sess. XIV, de Ext. Unct., c. 3. 

67 Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 359-60. 

58 Cf. infra, chap. v, p. 151 sqq. 

59 Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 350-2. 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 50 


question then becomes: Can the right to spiritual comfort and 
the other aids be increased or intensified? There is no reason 
why it cannot, because, unlike in the case of Order, Baptism 
and Confirmation, the ‘‘jus ad confortatronem spiritualem’’ is 
the very ‘‘res et sacramentum’’ of Extreme Unction. The only 
possible thing to hinder this increase of right would be an in- 
trinsic ineapability of the spiritual comfort itself allowing of 
increase. The question now resolves itself further. Can spiri- 
tual comfort (confortatio), when once conferred, be in- 
creased? It is quite evident that such a thing is possible, since 
it consists especially in acts of faith, hope, love, spiritual joy, 
ete. Moreover, since no sacrament takes away the potency of 
falling into future sins, it is also plain that if any appreciable 
period of time intervenes between the man’s anointment and 
his death, he will likely have committed several venial sins. 
Hence a repetition would be effective for this very reason. 


Kern’s reasoning was attacked with very great violence by 
Dr. Walter McDonald, the dean of Dunboyne Establishment at 
Maynooth. Writing in the Irish Theological Quarterly ® 
shortly after the appearance of Kern’s work, he defends the 
common belief with great mastery. He denies in the first place 
that ‘‘the effect and sacrament’’ of Extreme Unction, as well 
as that of Penance, is a right. He says that it is rather a basis 
of right, which may be intensified or not. The character of 
Baptism, Confirmation or Order is a basis of right to certain 
sacramental graces. It is intrinsically capable of increase (why 
not?), somewhat in the same fashion as sanctifying grace itself. 
Yet no second repetition of these sacraments actually intensify 
this basis of right. The question arises then how a mere repeti- 
tion of Extreme Unction—while the ‘‘effect and sacrament”’ is 
already in the soul—produees any intensification of sacramental 
efiicacy. Pursuing this same thought, Quinn® also argues: 
‘Mather Kern tells us that helps given by the sacrament are 
eapable of increase. But how can they be increased by the 
repetition of a rite which merely signifies something that has 
already been effected? The rite should be ineffective, because 
its normal effect has already been produced and remains. Even 


60 Vol. II (1907), p. 339-42. 
61 Some Aspects of the Dogma of Extreme Unction, pp. 131. 


56 Extreme Unction | 


if it were effective, its effect (res et sacramentum) would estab- 
lish no stronger claim on God for sacramental graces. For, as 
a mere repetition the rite would cover no new ground. The 
reality produced by it in the soul could be the moral cause of 
only the selfsame graces or helps, already due to the sacrament 
conferred.’’ 

It is no escape from this conclusion to draw a parity with 
the Penance or the Eucharist, which may be repeated very 
often. The ‘‘effect and sacrament’’ of Penance (at least, ac- 
cording to the best opinion) is transient, while that of Extreme 
Unetion has a quasi-permanency, lasting, as all admit, thruout 
the whole duration of the danger of death. Whenever the 
‘‘effect and sacrament’’ have been produced by a prior admin- 
istration and are continuing in the soul thruout a period of 
time, there is neither room nor need of the selfsame ‘‘res et 
sacramentum’’ as long as the former one continues. In the 
ease of the Eucharist, the ‘‘effect and sacrament’’ lasts only as 
long as the species remain incorrupt in the stomach. During 
that time a new reception has no sacramental efficacy.®? ‘‘ Why 
is this,’’ Dr. McDonald asks, ‘‘if not because the effect and 
‘sacrament is already there—produced by the first reception ?’’® 

Drouven,® in defending the validity of repetition, offers as 
one of the reasons: ‘‘Nee quidquam obstat quominus et pecca- 
torum remissio, et restitutio corporalis sanitatis, qui duo ejus 
effectus sunt, saepe a Deo iteratis unctionibus et mysticis pre- 
cibus postulentur.’’ The flaw in this is that he assumes that 
the remission of sins, &e., are asked for by the external rite 
(sacramentum tantum), whereas it is only thru the mediation 
of the ‘‘effect and sacrament’’ (res et sacramentum) that this 
petitioning is done. And in the case of Extreme Unction— 
since the effect and sacrament continue—the impetration of 
these effects from God is continuous, so that there is no need 
of subsequent administrations of the sacrament for this pur- 
pose. Indeed the effect and sacrament are more truly petition- 


62 We are not dealing here with the question of the production of acci- 
dental grace by the consumption of the second species. This case 
regards the reception a second time in the same fashion as the first 
reception, whether that was done under both species or only under 
a single species. 

63 Irish Theological Quarterly, vol. II, (1907), p. 341. 

64 De Re Sacramentaria, |. 7, q. 5, cap. 2. 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction ay 


ing God for the helps and graces of the sacrament than the 
valid external rites (sacramentum tantum) can be said to do 
0.% 


The consequence is that the arguments in favor of repeti- 
tion from theological reason are not very impressive. But what 
of the positive arguments? How can we explain the existence 
of a practice which was so widespread that it could hardly have 
existed without the knowledge of Rome, nor even without offi- 
cial approbation? Dr. McDonald has recourse to the Scotist 
theory of partial sacraments. The full grace of the sacrament 
is not received until the last unction of the rite is done. The 
essential graces are conferred in the first unction, and these 
are increased and perfected by the subsequent anointings. This 
increase and perfection are accomplished by the infusion of actual 
graces into the soul, having generally a particular relation with 
the transgressions of the sense or organ anointed. The theory 
is intelligible in regard to the anointments made on various 
distinet parts of the body. But how is it possible to extend this 
theory to the case where the very rite 1s repeated thru the per- 
formance of the identical unctions on the selfsame parts of the 
body seven times? For instance, what does the subject recelve 
from a second and third unction of the eyes that he has not 
received in the first anointment? How can two unctions of the 
same organ increase and perfect a particular effect when the 
repetition of the entire rite does not increase the general and 
essential effect of the sacrament ?° 


It seems more logical to have recourse to the explanation 
given by Quinn® and by Bishop MacDonald®® that these prac- 
tices were nothing else than abuses. Yet besides the respon- 


65 Cf. Quinn, Some Aspects of the Dogma of Extreme Unction, p. 131. 

66 Kern (Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 343-4) says that it is impossible to 
separate the sacrament into so many partial administrations because 
the interval between them is too long; and the intention of the 
minister would have to be ‘‘de futuro.’’ The force of this is weak- 
ened by the promulgation of Canon 947. It shall be seen (cf. infra, 
chap. xii, p. ) that many claim that the unctions can be supplied 
at any time throughout the same danger of death when the sacrament 
has been conferred by the short form. In other words, while the 
‘‘effect and sacrament’’ remains in the soul, it is permissible to 
perfect the sacrament by the performance of these additional unc- 
tions, whereby actual graces are conferred. 

67 Some Aspects of the Dogma of Extreme Unction, p. 131. 

68 Amer. Eccl. Review, vol. XLII (1910), pp. 23-6. 


58 Extreme Unction 


sibility which this sweeping condemnation imposes, these authors 
‘have to proffer an explanation of the Greek practice of bless- 
ing the oil so often. They must explain too, the value of the 
action of the second and third and other priests in the perform- 
ance of the same anointings as the first priest. In the Greek 
ceremony, when would the essential effect occur? Would it be 
after the first unction of the first priest? This ean easily be 
claimed, and with just as much reason it ean be claimed that 
actual graces are infused by the subsequent unctions of the first 
priest, so that thereby the sacrament is perfected and made 
integral.®® But what of the unctions of the second priest? He 
anoints the very parts of the body which the first priest has 
done. Is the ‘‘effect and sacrament’’ intensified in such a way 
that more actual graces result, especially in favor of that sense 
or source of sin anointed twice? Yet how can the sacrament 
be perfected by a re-unction of the same parts of the body ? 
The purpose in distributing the unctions among the various 
sources of sin is to express more fully the effects of the sacra- 
ment. But there is no fuller expression of the effect thru a 
repetition of the unction of the same parts twice or oftener. © 


The only outlet is a contention that the unction by the first 
priest in the Greek ceremony is a sacrament and all the other 
unctions merely ceremonial, as Arcudius claims,?° or that the 
actions of the seven priests unite into one sacramental action. 
Both of these contentions are open to attack in several vital 
spots. Goar’? rebuked Arcudius for his opinion in this regard, 
and offered in its stead the alternative that the one sacrament 
was confected seven times with sacramental fruits. It is indeed 
hard to see what difference there is between the confection of 
seven different sacraments (different numero) or one sacra- 
ment confected seven times with sacramental fruit. If it is 
held that the seven priests are but one moral minister, 
the question again revives: when is the essential effect of 
the sacrament conferred? Is it after the unctions have 
been completed by the seventh priest—or after the first unction 
of the first priest? If the former, how can the effect of the 


69 Quinn actually does espouse this theory in the question of the unity of 
Extreme Unction. (Cf. opus cét., pp. 80-1), 

70 De Concord. Eccl. Occid. et Orient., 1. Vy 07.0, 

71 Euchologion, p. 354, n. 37. 


A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction os 
sacrament be suspended after its full significance has been 
expressed fully by the first priest? It would be quite a differ- 
ent problem, perhaps, if the subsequent anointments were made 
on parts of the body distinct from those anointed by the first 
priest. But where the six other priests anoint the selfsame 
organs, once more it must be asked, what further signification 
of the effects of the sacrament, what fuller expression of the 
outward sign of the sacrament is made? On the other hand, 
if the essential grace is conferred after the first unction, and 
this is increased and perfected by the later ones, we fall into 
the selfsame difficulty as to how a second unction of the eyes 
produces a second and increased partial effect, when an increase 
of the general and essential effect is impossible. 


The argument from positive theology in support of validity 
of repetition in the same danger seems to rest on solidly prob- 
able grounds. It can be more easily avoided and ignored than 
refuted. On the other hand the argument from theological 
reason is not so cogent. However, we must not forget how fall- 
ible theologians were in their argumentations about the ‘‘supply- 
ing’’ of the unctions after the decree of the Holy Office in 
1906.72, Not one of them seemed to ‘hit the exact truth. The 
statement of Pallavicini is very appropriate in this connection: 
‘‘Ma specialmente ne soggetto che allora si maneggiava, de’ 
sacramenti; vedevasi depender il tutto dall’ arbitraria institu- 
zione di Dio, senza che vi rimanesse quasi aleun opera all’ 
umano discorso per trarne conclusioni infallibili.’’* At any 
rate, adherence to the view which holds validity of repetition 
has some advantages. In the first place it gives a logical ex- 
planation of the Greeks in their seven-fold unction. Secondly, 
it saves us from the temerity of asserting, at least implicitly, 
a sweeping condemnation of a one-time widespread practice— 
a course which the wise theologian hesitates to take. 


72 Cf. infra, chap. xii, p. 385. 
73 Istoria del Concilto dt Trento, t. II, 1. XII, cap. 12, n. 18. 












eae bln SF TOSS WV ERECT cetewet | t28 Spratct 
ay ¢ : ey 4/> “Fe 7 mit r : ; 
x » <. ie a {7s ‘ yr : oii si Ct rt ay 
a Paes vate gilt ta : 
* > ‘ 2 ¥ 
, é Te a 4 fi é a bd r 
. I 4 , A “in -* 4 ie aks 
. : 4 s 
LP, ~s3,°@ 5 
j s 4 me gt rg . : 
Rene e is OSs were y A 
y 
‘st oe ee Joes | 13 A Ope ry 
| ’ 
\ 
; ’ ; ‘ é 
) ; doh ied ta We heey: 
ts : bane 4 BLUSSTS VIS 8 
. 7 ‘ i > n Z }. I t . +4 : 
t A f bd id 0) @ 225 vA 
: 4 - . wz 
. 7 ‘ ‘ts of Z Per, i i. # =? 
aa t af.” BS . pF at. h 3 
om ‘ 
: : ok) Sel DEES Cee ii ere «eee 
hs \ . 
; tds oe , ¢ * CF oa , 
ie : OE Pe AEE HER hh ae |. oy 
he ii 
is r | ’ 
; i LA rest?t ke. pe basaehs 
giay * +4 ~ 
ols ’ , af 4 of ae a a ; hig Be , 
; rye ry . ‘ 
f ; SH Ts Ley 7 OTP es 
3 (tht: oeran it thet ee ob tcl Aad dl ee eee 
7 Ae SeilViay zee 4 , JRO fF aryl > ree 
ras A ; ol ‘ bh . SUN d 4) waist 


ERO BOO Ah Saale priate, Abs sO sea, Bis 


L1G 


aee | seis dtuece. £4 aS. ; , ; 2 , Qin 
Y 7 ener ee F- Fe bie (it co7r tin? 13 eta FES 45 f. tex Tite 
; 7 « \ Paine sh & 

o- iy 4 a, od © - i ‘ie ‘ f : p — 
A 4; \¥ wks i 442 ie ft dar 4 ost? (toot 
y , as - 
’ is i+ oS 7 ( ‘ 
' 1b) Sed TA aE SERS AN) : 


m1 Thes HATE ake 7% 

P. a4 » rs 4, 44s r ao A 7 > 

Redo) ade ki pelos seieb dane 
M % y ’ ie i 


_ ie 4 + 4, 
] Git Ai 


wun. At ee te") ai Ws ,, ey 4 rhe vi shy-tas ‘esa? ‘ats 


ty 





~ 
My 
: 

y 
~~ 
~ 
J 

F 


CHAPTER II. 


THE ELEMENTS 
OF EXTREME UNCTION 


CANON 937. 


‘“Extremae unctionis sacramentum conferri debet 
per sacras unctiones, adhibito oleo olivarum rite bene- 
dicto, et per verba in ritualibus libris ab Ecclesia probatis 
praescripta. 


[ 61] 





CHAPTER II. 


The titles of the first part of Book III of the Code treat 
of the sacraments in the order of enumeration made by the 
Council of Trent.1 Consequently the fifth title of this part is 
inscribed ‘‘De Extrema Unctione.’’ It is divided into three 
chapters and eleven canons. The first chapter deals with the 
minister of this sacrament, and contains two canons. The sec- 
ond chapter disposes of the subject of Extreme Uncetion in five 
canons. Chapter Three treats of the rites and ceremonies of 
the sacrament, and comprises three canons. Canon 937 stands 
alone, an introduction to the ten which follow. 

Though couched in general terms befitting an introduction, 
it embodies the doctrines of Trent and the Popes. There is 
explicit mention of its sacramental nature, of its remote and 
proximate matter and of the form. It omits all mention of the 
minister and of the subject, for they are external to the sacra- 
ment and also because they are treated specifically in the later 
canons. 


‘‘Betremae Unctionis sacramentum.’’ 

Unlike in the case of matrimony,? the Code does not for- 
mulate a distinct canon stating the sacramentality of Extreme 
Unction. It takes this for granted by employing the phrase 
“the sacrament of Extreme Unction.’’ Yet denials of this 
fundamental truth by heretics have led the Church to proclaim 
over and over again the true doctrine in this matter.2 Even 
as late as 1907 Pius X condemned the modernistie view 4 “* Jaco- 
bus in sua epistola non intendit promulgare aliquod sacramen- 
tum Christi, sed commendare pium aliquem morem, et si in hoc 
more forte cernit medium aliquod gratiae, id non accipit eo 
rigore, quo acceperunt theologi, qui rationem et numerem sacra- 
mentorum statuerunt.’’ 





1 Sess. VII, De Sac. in genere, can. 1. 

2 can. 1012. 

3 Cf. supra, chap. I, sect. II, p. 6 sqq. 

48.C. S. Off., ‘‘Lamentabili,’’ 3 Jul. 1907 Errores Modernistarum, n. 48, 
A.S.S., XL, 476. 


[ 63 ] 


64 Extreme Unction 


The Code continues: 


““Conferri debet per sacras unctiones.’’ 


The announcement of the proximate matter of the sacra- 
ment is contained in these words. The plural ‘‘unctiones’’ is 
used, not because more than one unction is essential, but because 
in the ordinary mode of administration several anointings are 
required by Ritual. 

.Suarez® tells of an opinion which held that this sacrament 
consisted in the ‘‘oleum ab episcopo benedictum;’’ and that the 
unctions were but the application of a sacrament already con- 
fected. Those who proposed this were probably influenced by 
a comparison of this sacrament with the Eucharist, which has 
a permanent ‘‘esse.’’ Yet this opinion can have no basis in 
fact. Its proponents failed to recognize that thru the consecra- 
tion of the Eucharist the very Author of grace is not only 
signified but actually becomes present, while in the blessing of 
the oil, grace is neither given nor signified. Moreover the essen- 
tial form of the sacrament would be the prayer used in the 
blessing of the oil, not that used when anointing the body. The 
essential form of the Eucharist is not the prayer ‘‘Corpus Do- 
mini’’ &¢. said in the administration of Holy Communion. With 
no less certainty ‘‘Per istam sanctam unctionem’’ &e. would not 
be the form of Extreme Unction. This is certainly contrary to 
the doctrines of the Church on this point.® 

Moreover, if Extreme Unction consists in blessed oil, then 
blessed water, and not the ablution, is the sacrament of Bap- 
tism. Yet from the very words of Christ, ‘‘baptizantes eos,’’ 
we learn that the proximate matter of baptism consists in an 
action. Similarly we can deduce what the proximate matter 
of Extreme Unction is from the words of the Apostle, ‘‘ungen- 
tes eum.’’ 

In the third place, if such were the case, the proper min- 
ister of Extreme Unction would be the bishop—and not the 
priest, unless he had an Apostolic faculty.7 A priest, when an- 


5 Disp. 40, sect. 2, n. 1. 

6 Cf. Conc. Trid., Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct., cap. 1, in fine; Eugene IV, 
const. *“Eaultate Deo’’ (in Cone. Florentin.) 22 Noy. 1439, paragr. 
14, C. I. C. Fontes, n. 52. 

7 Can. 945. 


The Elements of Extreme Unction 65 


ointing, would simply be a dispenser of the mystery, in the 
same fashion as a deacon ean distribute the Hucharist. 

Finally the valid reception of the sacrament would not 
depend upon its application by a priest any more than that of 
the Eucharist does. Even a layman would be able to apply it 
validly, and in case of extreme necessity would probably be 
allowed to do this licitly. 

It can be seen how absolutely foundless such a doctrine is. 
And more—it is in positive discord with the teachings of the 
Council of Trent: ‘‘Intellexit enim Ecclesia materiam esse oleum 
ab Episcopo benedictum; nam unctio aptissime Spiritus Sancti 
gratiam qua invisibiliter aegrotantis anima inungitur, reprae- 
sentat.’’® Here oil blessed by a bishop is said to be the matter 
of the sacrament, not the sacrament itself. From this it fol- 
lows that the form of the sacrament is not the prayer used in 
the blessing of the oil, for this has already been said. It con- 
sists of the words spoken at the very moment that the matter is 
applied to the subject. The prayer of blessing simply consti- 
tutes the oil valid matter of the sacrament. 

The number and places of the unctions is the first con- 
sideration proposed by this canon. The Scriptural text furn- 
ishes no definite enlightenment, for St. James simply wrote ‘‘un- 
gentes eum oleo.’’ Hence the Scholastics had to deal with the 
question as to whether the whole body must be anointed. St. 
Bonaventure® gives the reasons for and against this problem, 
and decides that only seven parts of the body are to be anointed, 
viz., the five senses, the feet and the reins, because these repre- 
sent fully the sources of sins, whose deletion is the purpose of 
Extreme Unction. Similarly the Angelic Doctor solves the 
question: ‘‘The sacrament is shown to us under the form of a 
healing. Now bodily healing has to be effected, by applying 
the remedy, not to the whole body, but to the parts where the 
root of the disease is seated. Consequently the sacramental unc- 
tion also ought to be applied to those parts only in which the 
spiritual sickness is rooted.’’”° 


8 Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct., cap. 1. 

9 Comm. in quart. lib. Sent., dist. 23, a. 2, q. 3. 

10 The Summa Theologica of St. Thom. Aquin., Suppl., q. 32, a. 5 (Trans- 
lated by the Fathers of the Eng. Dom. Province). 


66 Extreme Unction 


It is certain today that the unction of the whole body is 
not required. Such an extensive application of oil is no more 
necessary in this sacrament than the ablution of the entire body 
in Baptism. Nor has such ever been the practice of the Church. 
All the rituals are content with defining certain prominent 
parts of the body to be anointed. Yet there is no unanimity in 
this regard among the various Rituals, either of the Hast or 
of the West. The places of unction prescribed by them, as well 
as the number of anointings to be made, have differed immensely 
thru the course of time. 

Theodulf, the bishop of Orleans in the ninth century, tes- 
tifies in his Caprtulare: 

‘¢ Apostoli, ungentes oleo infirmos, non amplius quam tres cruces 
cum oleo super eos faciebant. Unde Graeci, qui ipsam Traditionem 
apostolorum imitantur, similiter tyes tantum cruces cum oleo faciunt, 
fundentes cum ampulla oleum infirmorum in crucis modum super 
caput et vestimenta et totum corpus infirmi, incipientes crucem @ 
capite usque ad pedes, in transverso a manu dextra usque ad brachia 
et pectus usque ad sinistram manum, seme] dicentes ad ipsas tres 
eruces: ‘Ungo te in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti ut 
oratio fidei salvet te et alleviet te Dominus et si in peccatis sis, 
remittantur tibi.’ ’711 


Yet if this ritual was universal at all, its universality was 
short-lived, for Goar produces in his ‘‘ Euchologion!*’’ a Greek 
ritual of the ninth century which ordered unctions on the fore- 
head, the ears and the hands. 

In interesting contrast to these, there is the ritual pres- 
eribed by Symeon, the Orthodox archbishop of Thessalonica in 
the fifteenth century: 


‘¢Ungit oleo ad modum crucis ipsius frontem ob contentas in eo 
cogitationes; faciem quoque inungit propter sensuum organa, post- 
remo manus a pravis cogitationibus et operibus eum expians, sanc- 
toque oleo et signo crucis muniens et perfecte sanctificans.’’13 


Two centuries later Arcudius gives a still different rite, 
making apparent how very little fixity there has been in the, 


SEM SE Lee On, aks 

12 p. 348. 

13 Liber de Sacramentis, ‘‘De Sacro Ritu 8. Olei.’’—M. P. G., 155, 515 & 
527. 


The Elements of Extreme Unction 67 


Oriental procedure: 


‘‘Graecorum sacerdotes ungunt aegri frontem, mentum, ambas 
genas, ita ut fieri videatur unctio in capite ad modum erucis; deinde 
pectus, tum manus idque ex utraque parte, postremo pedes.’’14 


Yet a contemporary, Metrophanes Critopulus,’> speaks of 4 
rite wherein unctions were made only on the forehead, breast, 
hands and feet. 

Today some of the Uniats anoint in the same fashion as 
the Roman Church. Others retain the order of unctions men- 
tioned by Arcudius. The schismatics also differ among them- 
selves in regard to the parts of the body anointed, but none 
of them accept the Roman custom.1® 


The same, if not more, diversity of ritualistic observance 
marks the Latin Church in regard to the number and places 
of unctions. 

The Gregorian Sacramentary, which has come from the 
hands of Gregory the Great, prescribes unetions ‘‘on the neck 
and throat and between the shoulders; and on the breast or in 
the place of pain.’’!7 A note is added to the effect that many 
priests anoint the sick ‘‘insuper in quinque sensus corporis, 1. é., 
in superciliis oculorum et in naribus deintus et in narium sum- 
mitate sive exterius et in labiis exterius, et in manibus exterius, 
i. e., deforis.’”1® 

It is clear that unction of the senses is considered alto- 
gether supererogatory. An old Pontifical of the Library of the 
Parisian Dominicans ‘‘ad portam Sanjacobaeam’”” orders, 
even for cases of necessity, unctions upon the crown of the 
head, the forehead, the ears, the eyes, the nose, the lips, the 


14 De Concord. Eccl. Occident. et Orient. in Septem Sacram. Admininst., 
caer es 

15 Confessio, ¢. 13. 

16 Cf, Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 134, footnote. 

17M. P. L., 78, 235. 

18 L. c. N. B. Although the anointing of the five senses is mentioned in 
this note, nevertheless the enumeration of the organs, according to 
the text of Migne, includes the nose twice and omits the ears alto- 
gether. ‘‘Naribus’’ is evidently a misprint for ‘‘auribus’’; and is 
translated ‘‘ears’’ by Quinn (Some Aspects of the Dogma of Ex- 
treme Unction, p. 65). This is further confirmed by the sentence 
which follows the above text in the Sacramentary: ‘‘Hoc enim 
faciunt ut si in quinque sensus mentis et corporis aliqua macula 
inhaesit hac medicina Dei sanetur.’’ 

19 Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 575. 


68 Extreme Unction 


breast, the shoulder-blades, the hands and the feet. In direct 
antithesis to this rite which demanded so many unctions, the 
ancient mozarabiec ritual prescribed but one single anointment, 
and that ‘‘in capite.’’”° 

The old Code of Ratoldi?! gives unctions for the ears, nose, 
lips, breast, shoulder-blades, hands and feet. The omission of 
the eyes is noteworthy. 


An ancient Ordo of the Church of Tours decreed four une- 
tions: ‘‘in collo, in gutture, et inter scapulas, et in pectore seu 
loco ubi dolor imminet.’’?* 


A ritual of Rheims, just as old, ordered anointings 
vertice capitis, in superciliis oculorum, in auribus deintus, in 
narium summitate, in labiis exterius, in planta pedum.’’*? Here 
the unction of the hands is omitted, a rare thing when the 
anointments of the other senses are prescribed. 


“S57 


Few of the ancient Ordines were content with the unction 
of the senses only. Thus the Codex Arremarensis** adds to the 
unctions of the senses the anointing of the feet, throat, neck, 
shoulder-blades, and navel or place of pain. Similarly, the 
Codex Tilianus*® prescribed the oil to be applied ‘‘in ecollo et 
gutture et pectore et inter scapulas, seu in loco ubi dolor plus 
imminet et in quinque sensibus corporis’? &e. The unctions 


‘‘In dextro tempore et sinistro, non in fronte nec in vertice... 
item in superciliis et subliciis juxta angulos oculorum. ... Item 
aures intus et foris in summitate crucis signa recipiunt.... Item 
nares in summitate et subtus inungantur crucis modo... . Item 
labia, dicendo, &c.... et exterius super mentum et guttur facien- 
dum... item super humeros duos, hoc est, scapulas, non in pectore, 
neque inter scapulas. . . . Item super manus; et si presbyter est, non 
infra: sin aliter et infra. ... Et super pedes et sub plantis cruces 
fiunt.’’ 





20 ‘Ordo ad vistitandum vel perungendum infirmum’’—apud Monumenta 
Ecclesiae Liturgica (ed. Cabrol et Leclerq), vol. V: ‘‘Le liber 
Ordinum en usage dans lVeglise Wisigothique et Mozarabe d’Espagne 
du 5—II siécle, p. 71. 

21 Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. 1, p. 574. 

22 Martene, De Antiq. Eccl. Rit.,.1. 1, ¢. 7, a. 4, Ordo IV. 

23 Martene, l.c., Ordo VIII (tenth century). 

24 De Sainte-Beuve, De Sac. Ext. Unct., disp. III, a. Il, apud Migne, 
Curs. Theol. Comp., vol. xxiv, 89. 

we Ls th dey Fj oes 


The Elements of Extreme Unction 69 


decreed by the Codex Remigio-Remensis *° are very numerous 
and interesting. The oil was to be applied 

A still greater number of unctions was prescribed by the Codex 
Siculus, the ancient ordo of Salzburg. Not only the five senses 
were designated, but also the head, neck, throat, breast, heart, 
shoulder-blades, feet, the place of pain and all joints.*” A huge 
number of anointings was also commanded by the ‘‘Liber Sacra- 
mentorum’’ of St. Gatian of Tours.?8 Crosses of oil were to be 
made ‘‘in collo, in gutture, et inter scapulas, et in pectore, et 
in quinque sensibus corporis, in genibus quoque, et in eruribus, 
suris, pedibus ac plantis, et pene in omnibus membris, seu in 
illo loco ubi dolor plus imminet.’’ 

In the Church of Noyon?® nine unctions were made, viz., 
upon the five senses, the neck, the throat, the shoulders and the 
breast. To these nine the Codex Ecclesiae Floriacensis * added 
another unction, ‘‘ad cerebrum.’’ All ten plus an additional 
unction of the place of pain are given by the Codex Cl. V. 
Domini Desmarais.** 

In Soissons the five senses were anointed together with the 
breast, shoulder-blades and feet; and the unction of the ears 
preceded that of the eyes.32 

The very same places of unction were noted in the Missale 
Romaricense®? but the order in which the unctions were to be 
made was slightly different. To these unctions the Pontifical of 
Sens34 adds that of the throat, while the Ritual of Beauvais*® 
adds both the neck and the throat. 

The Pontifical of Amiens®* omits the unction of the lips, but 
adds to those of the other four senses the anointments of the 
throat, breast and feet. The Ritual of the Church of St. Mary 
of Rheims3? prescribed crosses of oil for the crown of the head, 


26 Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 575. 
27 Martene, De Antig. Eccl. Rit., 1. 1, ¢. 7, a. 4, Ordo XII. 
28 Martene, l.c., Ordo III. 

29 Martene, l.c., Ordo X. 

80 Martene, l.c., Ordo XXI. 

81 Martene, l.c., Ordo XXIII. 

82 Martene, l.c., Ordo XIII. 

83 Martene, l.c., Ordo XIV. 

84 Martene, l.c., Ordo XV. 

35 Martene, ].c., Ordo XVII. 

36 Martene, l.c., Ordo XXIV. 

87 Martene, l.c., Ordo VIII. 


70 Extreme Unction 


the eyes, ears, nose, lips and feet, thus omitting the hands; 
whereas the Church of St. Mary Magdalen near Le Mans?8 or- 
dered, besides the unction of the five senses, an unction of the 
feet and of the navel. In Cambrai the lips were not mentioned, 
but there were many unctions none the less. Here the crown of 
the head, the forehead, both temples, the face, the eyes, the ears, 
the nose, the throat, the neck, between the shoulder-blades, be- 
tween the breasts, the hands, the feet and the navel or place of 
pain, were assigned for unction.®® 

The Pontifical of Emesa in Syria? ordered the unction of 
the five senses, then added the announcement: ‘‘Juxta consue- 
tudinem quorundum ungitur in pectore ... similiter et in 
umbilico,’’ and finally directs the unction of the feet. Priests 
in Chalons-sur-Marne were instructed by their Ritual‘! to anoint 
the eyes, the ears, the nose, the shoulder-blades (‘‘super sca- 
pulas, non in pectore neque inter scapulas’’) the hands and the 
feet. Yet those who followed the Ritual of the Monastery of 
Movisacensis** anointed, in addition to the five senses and the 
neck and the throat, the very places which the Ritual of Cha- 
lons forbade, viz., the breast and ‘‘inter scapulas.’’ 

The Ritual of Verdun** surprisingly omits the unction of 
the nose, and prescribes anointments for the neck, the throat, 
the place of pain and the head. <A very old Ordo of the Roman 
Church directs the oil to be applied to the five senses and leaves 
optional the anointing of the feet and reins.‘ 

This investigation into the positive practice of the admin- 
istration of Extreme Unction is advantageous. The wide var- 
lance of rite before the sixteenth century goes far to explain the 
Church’s power, exemplified in Canon 947, to declare that one 
single unction is eminently sufficient to confer the sacrament. 
When the unction of the five senses became universal in the 
West toward the end of the sixteenth century, theological opin- 
ion beame so fixed that up until 1906 the validity of a single 
unction was represented in most theological text-books as ex- 


38 Martene, l.c., Ordo XXVI. 

39 Martene, l.c., Ordo XVI. 

40 Martene, l.c., Ordo XX. 

41 Martene, l.c., Ordo XXVII. 

42 Martene, l.c., Ordo IX. 

43 Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 578. 
44 Launoi, op. cit., p. 575. 


The Elements of Extreme Unction T1 


tremely dubious. Yet history proves decisively that the places 
of unction are not of necessity unalterably determined. They 
have varied more or less according as they seemed to express 
most fittingly the inward significance of the sacrament in the 
eyes of those who composed the rituals of the respective 
Churches. 

This proves that the canon, in ordering the sacrament to 
be conferred ‘‘per sacras unctiones,’’ had good reason not to 
become too specific in its statement of the places of unction. 
Even today additional unctions are made in the various dioceses 
which do not use the Roman Ritual. The last edition of the 
Roman Ritual gives but six places of unction, omitting, as it 
does, all mention of the reins. By this canon a priest is com- 
manded to follow his own ritual. Hence he who omits an unc- 
tion prescribed by his own ritual, though not directed by the 
Roman Ritual, is guilty of a serious sin of disobedience against 
the prescriptions of this eanon.*® 


The amount of oil to be used in an unction and the extent 
or size of the unctions have hardly been questioned. Any appli- 
eation of oil which verifies the common estimation of unction 
suffices. 

It has been debated, however, whether a single drop of oil 
would be sufficient to confer the sacrament. Though of little 
practical value, many authors have discussed the question. 
Suarez denies the possibility of considering the use of only 
one drop of oil as a true unction. He writes: ‘‘Non enim erit 
satis unicam guttam olei stillare, quia id vel non est ungere vel 
eerte est res aliquo modo dubia, sed oportet partem corporis 
oleo linere, aliquid per illam diffundendo ; hoe enim est proprie 
et in rigore ungere.’’4® 

Other great theologians have taken the opposite view. La 
Croix,#7 Diana*® and Kenrick*® think such an application of 
oil a sufficient unction. St. Alphonsus®® calls the affirmative 
opinion the more probable one, provided that the five senses are 


45 Cf. also Can. 947, §1. 

46 D, 40, s. 2, n. 4. 

47 Th. M., lib. VI, p. II, n. 2094. 

48 Op. Coord., tom. II, tr. IV, res. VI. 

49 Th. M., III, de E. U., cap. unic., n. 3. 

50 Th. M., VI, 709, dub. 4; cf. St. Alph., Praz. Conf., n. 275, 1. 


ip Extreme Unction 


touched. Gury,°! Aertnys®? and Ferreres®? agree with St. Al- 
phonsus, but Konings®* refuses to concede the opinion more 
than mere probability. 

In practice consequently it is necessary—as the ‘‘pars tu- 
tior’’—to make a real unction by spreading with the thumb (or 
virgula) the holy oil upon the organs anointed. It would seem, 
speculatively, that if all the senses were touched even with the 
same drop, there would be a true diffusion. However De 
Herdt®® advises that the thumb be dipped anew into the oil 
before the unction of each individual sense. Since no extent 
of the unction is prescribed, the priest may make it any reason- 
able size, remembering all the while that the very least ‘‘dif- 
fusio’’ suffices. 

“‘Adhibito oleo olwarum’’ 

The remote matter of our sacrament is stated here. This 
has been treated at some length in Chapter I°® and little could 
be said that is not repetition. 

In all rites in union with the Church olive oil is used. 
A writer in the Kirchelexicon,°® speaks of a report that cotton- 
seed oil was used in quite recent times in North America. Such 
a practice, if it ever really existed, was certainly an abuse. It 
may have occurred from a falsification of the oils by manufac- 
turers. At any rate bishops and priests must be careful in 
this regard. The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore®® laid 


51 Comp. Th. M., II, 681. 

52 Th. M., II, n. 357. 

53 Comp. Th. M., II, 835, quaer. 10. 

54 Th. M., n. 1502, qg. 11. 

55 Lit. Praz., III, 200. 

56 Cf. supra, p. 24 sqq. 

57 Denziger notes that the Armenians seem to use butter in place of oil at 
times. ‘‘Oleum olivae idque benedictum ad unctionem extremam 
adhibendum esse, nisi Armenos forsan excipias, qui aliquando buty- 
Tum loco olei usurpasse videntur.’’ (tt. Orient., t. I, p. 185.) 

Vol. IX, col. 712; cf. Ephem. Lit., V, (1891), 443. 

59 Tit. V. cap. 7, n. 311: ‘‘Oleum ex oliva ad hoe sacramentum admini- 
strandum requiri constat. Curandum igitur est omni studio, ne olea 
adulterina, quae circumferuntur hoc nomine falso insignita, ad 
ungendos infirmos adhibeantur. Quum vero manifesta res sit, id 
quod tanquam oleum ex oliva fere ubique venditatur, ita callida arte 
confici, vel aliis oleis ex cetis aut larido ita misceri et obrui, ut olivi 
nil nisi nomen habeat; excitanda est Episcoporum sollicitudo et dili- 
gentia, ut per Catholicos optimae fidei mercatores verum et purum 
olivum ab Europa quotannis advehendum curent, ea saltem quanti- 
tate, quae omnium dioeceseon necessitatibus pro hujus et aliorum 
sacramentorum administratione sufficere possit.’’ 


On 
@ 


The Elements of Extreme Unction 73 


down a very serious warning in the matter, and some years 
later the Holy Office called attention to a very widespread 
adulteration of the oil intended for the sacraments. 


‘“‘Rite benedicto.’’ 


It has already been shown that some blessing is needed to 
make the oil valid matter for Extreme Unction.*t The words 
of this phrase are in keeping with the general terminology of 
the canon. The oil is to be blessed ‘‘rite,’’ i. e., according to 
the rite prescribed. A fuller discussion of this rite and of the 
exact quality of the blessing must be reserved to the treatment 
of Canon 945. 


““Per verba in ritualibus libris ab Ecclesia probatis prae- 
scripta’’ 

The number and variety of the forms that have been em- 
ployed in Extreme Unction are extremely divergent. A specu- 
lative treatment of their validity has already been given in 
Chapter I.6* An excursion into the realms of their history is 
interesting and of great value in arriving at a true judgment 
of what is really essential in them after all. 


Greek forms have been consistently deprecative in nature,®% 
but in the Latin Rite the variance has been most marked. Some 
are indicative, others optative, others deprecatory, others im- 
perative; while still others are a combination of two or more 
of these. Some express one effect, some another, while some 
try to express all the effects of the sacrament. 


In the thirty Ordines given by Martene,** fifteen® are 
indicative, seven °° are optative, two ®* are deprecative, one ® is 


60 §. C. 8. Off., 9 Jul. 1881—Coll., n. 1556. 

61 Cf, supra, chapter I , sect. p. 

62 Sect. IV, p. 

63 Theodulf of Arles gives an exception to this rule in regard to the rite 
of the Greeks before the schism. The form then used by them was 
indicative: ‘‘Ungo te in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, 
ut oratio fidei salvet te et alleviet te Dominus et si in peccatis sis, 
remittantur tibi.’’ (M. P. L.,, AG fee 

64 De garth. Rit. Eccl., lib. 1, cap. 7, 

65 Ordines I, IIT; IV, v, VII, AT im XIV, AVIigeR VIET RIX xX, 
XXYV, XXVIL. 

66 Ordines VIII, XIII, XV, XXII, XXIV, XXVI, XXIX. 

67 Ordines VI et IX. 

68 Ordo XXVIII. 


74 Extreme Unction 


imperative, while four® are mixed, i. e., a combination of two 
or more of these. 

An equal divergence can be noted in the multitude of Rit- 
uals quoted by Launoi.” Thus indicative forms are found in 
the Pontifical of Cambrai,”! the Manual of Lyons,’? the Manual 
of Chalons-sur-Marne,™ the Manual of Amiens,’* the Manual of 
Verdun? and the Manual of Metz.7@ The Pontifical of Laon™ 
contains an optative form practically the same as the present 
Roman form: ‘‘Per istam sanctam unctionen et suam plissimam 
misericordiam pareat tibi Dominis quidquid oculorum vitio deli- 
quisti. Amen.’’ 

Other rituals give indicative forms for some unctions and 
optative ones for others. Thus in the Manual of! the Church of 
Vienna’® all the anointings are done with an indicative form 
except that of the place of pain, which has an optative accom- 
paniment. The very same occurrence is found in the Manual 
of Toul,”® except that the form for the place of pain was depre- 
cative. In the Ritual of Le-Puy-en-Velay®® all the forms are 
indicative except that of the throat, which is optative. A very 
old Pontifical, dating back to the ninth year of the reign of 
Charlemagne, uses an indicative form for all the anointings 
except the lips, where it prescribes an optative formula.** 


Some liturgies give partial indicative forms, but add a 
prayer, optative in nature to these forms, making the combina- 
tion practically one complete form. In the Manual of Arras,‘? 
for instance, the form to be used outside of necessity®® is indi- 


69 Ordines II, X, XVIII, XXIII. 

70 Opera Omnia, t. I, pp. 464-568. 

71 Launoi, op. cit., p. 496-7. 

72 anno 1548, Launoi, op. cit., p. 507. 

73 anno 1529, Launoi, op. cit., p. 511-2. 

74 anno 1541, Launoi, op. cit., p. 516. 

75 anno 1554, Launoi, op. cit., p. 524. 

76 anno 1542, Launoi, op. cit., p. 526. 

77 Launoi, op. cit., p. 501. 

78 anno 1500, Launoi, op. cit., p. 503-4. 

79 anno 1529, Launoi, op. cit., p. 521. 

80 anno 1527, Launoi, op. cit., p. 529. 

81 Launoi calls this the Pontificale Bibliothecae Tilianae—op. cit., p. 467-8. 

82 anno 1563, Launoi, op. cit., p. 517-8. 

83 It is well worth while noticing that this Ritual prescribed a form to be 
used in case of necessity. Its forms were optative; and the unction 
of a Bate and of the feet were all prescribed. (Launoi, op. cit., 
p. -8. 


The Elements of Extreme Unction 75 


eative, and is immediately followed by this oration: 


‘‘Per istam sacratissimam unctionem et suam plissimam miseri- 
cordiam et benedictionem indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid peccasti 
per visum, per auditum, per odoratum, per gustum, per tactum, per 
gressum pedum, et absolvat te ab omnibus peccatis tuis confessis, 
contritis et negligenter oblitis, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus 
Sancti. Amen.’’ 


A similar oration can be found at the end of the indicative forms 
prescribed by the Manual of Vannes.®4 A very early Sacra- 
mentary, compiled by order of the Abbot Ratholdus, about the 
year 986, uses an indicative form with an optative oration as the 
complement.®> A similar occurrence is found in the famous 
Codex Renuigio-Remensis.*® 

Mixed forms occur in several of the rituals. Thus the 
Sacramentary of Gregory®’ has an indicative and an optative 
element in the composition of its form. The Ritual of Soissons®® 
prescribes a form partly indicative, partly imperative. A thir- 
teenth century rite, used in the Church of St. Lawrence at 
Milan,®® reveals a form partly indicative, partly imperative and 
partly optative. The Pontifical of Prudentius of Troyes®® has 
a form whose character is partly indicative, partly optative and 
partly deprecatory. 

These are but a few of the different forms which actually 
have been used in the course of the centuries. They are enough, 
however, to prove that the forms have differed as much as the 
places of unction. 

The present canon does not declare the validity or invalid- 
ity of any of them. It simply binds every priest to the use of 
his own ritual, be it Roman, Ambrosian, diocesan or monastic. 
On the point Benedict XIV wrote: ‘‘Injungendum est parochis 
ut formam adhibeant in Rituali praescriptam, quae certe sine 
gravi flagitio, non potest privata auctoritate immutari.’”? 


Whether a Greek priest, guilty of using a valid form other 
than that prescribed by his rite, would violate this canon is 


84 anno 1596, Launoi, op. cit., p. 519. 

85 Launoi, op. cit., p. 483-4. 

86 Launoi, op. cit., p. 489-90. 

from, PF; ., 78, 235. 

88 anno 1530, Launoi, op. cit., p. d15. 

89 Magistretti, Manuale Ambrosianum, t. I, p. 147 38. 
90 Martene, De Antig. Rit. Eccl., lib. 1, ¢. 7, a. 4. 

91 De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, c. 2. 


76 Extreme Unction 


hard to say. It might possibly be argued that this canon treats 
of a matter which of its nature affects Orientals.°* The differ- 
ent terminology used in this canon and in Canon 2 is also 
worthy of note. Canon 2 speaks of ‘‘libri liturgici ab Ecclesia 
Latina probati;’’ whereas this canon uses the phrase *‘in rl- 
tualibus libris ab Ecclesia probatis.’’? It is evident that the lat- 
ter phrase is wider in scope, at least prima facie, than the 
former. 


92 Canon 1. 


CHAPTER III. 


THE MINISTER 
OF EXTREME UNCTION 


CANON 938. 


1. Hoc sacramentum valide administrat omnis et 
solus sacerdos. 

2. Salvo praescripto can. 397, n. 3, 514, 1-3, minister 
ordinarius est parochus loci, in quo degit infirmus; in 
casu autem necessitatis, vel de licentia saltem rationabi- 
liter praesumpta ejusdem parochi vel Ordinarii loci, alius 
quilibet sacerdos hoc sacramentum ministrare potest. 


ean 








a * > 
," 
¥ | 
i { ‘, 
; q 
: * 
A \ a 
- 
3 = : 
= s 
-s i 
4 lor ord A. 27 9r , 
3 7% duo mn ch Ao J 
> 9% 
¥ ¢ ; 1 | , y¥ 7 2 
; 4 U ’ s = & a 
© j 1 q , J ee 
. ) yd Le 
= ] 
. as 
24. Paw i fA4A7 
? sf 4 aetrens = ay rarz x 
1 i : 2 sa PR Se Re! Me ti oS 8 hs 54: vee 30k a Tey 
‘ zobisen 
4 > ¢ we d i. ye ‘ 
> j - 3 - a / RED ofqriaes $d ae ove 
re dl a 
lovtitey Titeb ovp 1 doo annooise Tee ieee 
’ S x } 
: ¢ 4 st '‘ ce 7 < at le EAs i Sa + reps ay te 4 

; PH. Mi Be i ML 9h) 28 mist deégagegi ae 





% an z LOG} fi “eer ty tes WIV [SOG choked et reg ehrad 
i? 


rots 1208 


Ry SLE TAL Aor. 206 OG? oi} 





j i 
) 
ae 
j 
i] 
5 
i at 
% ( 
; 
4 
* 4 
il! { 
»* . | 
i. - / 
; 
J : % Heh 
‘ } 
] 4A 
: " . 4 i pd 
. hia ey 
' ; & 
, ‘ ‘ 


Ns Ja'vVe 
i) iy *id if ¢ 
- ‘ i ~ ie : es 
a4 , A u sh | Sa \ . 
é “%\ 5 é a « 
eee 





CHAPTER ITI. 


I. Tae Vauip MINISTER 


Hoc sacramentum valide administrat omnis et solus sacerdos. 


This paragraph enshrines a dogma of our faith. The Coun- 
ceil of Trent has anathematized those who teach any other doc- 
trine. In Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct., can. 4, the Sacred Synod 
declared: ‘‘Si quis dixerit presbyteros Ecclesiae, quos B. Jaco- 
bus adducendos esse ad infirmum ungendum hortatur, non esse 
sacerdotes ab episcopo ordinatos, sed aetate seniores in quavis 
communitate ; ob idque proprium Extremae Unctionis ministrum 
non esse solum sacerdotem, A. 8.’’ 


Even as early as the year 416 there was some doubt as to 
the capability of priests to administer this sacrament. Pope 
Innocent I dispelled this doubt in his letter to Decentius, the 
Bishop of Eugubinus.! ‘‘Ceterum illud,’’ he wrote, ‘‘super- 
fluum videmus adjectum ut de episcopo ambigatur ; quod presby- 
teris licere non dubium est. Nam ideireo de presbyteris dic- 
tum est, quia episcopi oceupationibus aliis impediti, ad omnes 
languidos ire non possunt.’’ Origen had even before that an- 
cient date borne witness to the very same interpretation of St. 
James’ ‘‘presbyteri;’”* and the identical exegesis was rendered 
also by St. Chrysostom.’ 


In the early centuries the controversy waged about whether 
the rite of unction was solely an episcopal function or not. Such 
questions probably arose from the fact that in those ages Bishops 
very often did confer the last rites of the Church. Many his- 
torical documents tell of actual anointings by Bishops. E. g., 
Charlemagne was anointed by a bishop; St. Adalard was like- 
wise honored (as St. Gerard wrote in the Life of that saint) ; 
the Empress Mathilda received Extreme Unction from Arch- 
bishop Willelmus; Ferdinand the King of Spain (Castile) was 


1 Ep., ‘‘ Si instituta ecclesiastica,’’ cap. 8—C. I. C. Fontes, No. 19. 
2 Homilia II in Leviticum, M. P. G., 12, 418B. 
3 De Sacerdotio, lib, III, sect. 6—M. P. G., 48, 644. 


[19] 


80 Extreme Unction 


attended by a Bishop, etc. Moreover the ancient rituals de- 
clared that if a Bishop were present, the rite of unction was 
his privilege.©5 Durandus® discusses the impropriety of being 
later anointed by a priest, when one has been anointed by a 
Bishop. 

Several particular Councils vindicated to priests the power 
to anoint. E. g., the Council of Chalons-sur-Saone (813) pre- 
scribed: ‘‘Secundum beati Jacobi apostoli documentum, cui 
etiam documenta patrum consentiunt, infirmi oleo, quod ab 
episcopis benedicitur, a presbyteris ungi debent.’’? Other 
councils, as those of Aachen, (836),° Magonza (847),° and Pa- 
via (850),!° legislated in a similar vein.” 

In later years the pendulum swung dangerously near the 
heretical end of the are of theological thought, when Thomas 
Netter, a Carmelite of Walden,!* denied the necessity of the 
presence of Orders in the minister for the valid confection of 
this sacrament. Jaunoi!® trespassed beyond the hedge-rows of 
Catholic dogma in his contention that deacons, in case of nec- 
essity could, with the Bishop’s permission, administer this sacra- 
ment. He defended his opinion on the ground that, since a 
deacon could administer Viaticum and, as was widely thought 
in the Middle Ages, receive confessions, he could also administer 
Extreme Unction. However the constant and insistent declara- 
tions of the Church, demanding the sacerdotality of the minis- 
ter, and the remarkable clarity of the text of St. James ** ef- 
fected the prevention of any notable discussion on this important 
matter. 

Church legislation and instruction in this regard abounds. 
The Corpus Juris Canonici contained not only the letter of 
Innocent I,1° but also a decision of Alexander III’® which 


4 Of. Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 323. 

5 Martene, De Antiq. Ecc. Rit., 1. I, «. 7, a. 4 (Ordo XII). 
6 Rationale Dw. Officiorum, 1. I, ¢. 8, n. 25. 
7 Can. 48—Harduin IV, 1040. 

8 Cap. II, can. 5—Harduin IV, 1397. 

9 Harduin V, 13. 

10 Harduin V, 27. 

11 Cf. Hurter, Th. D. Comp., III, p. 479. 

12 Doct. Antiq. Fidei, t. II, c. 163, n. 3. 

13 Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 569, observ. II. 

14 Cf. supra, chap. I, sect. II, p. 8 sqq. 

18 ©. 3, D, XCV. 

16 ©, 14, X, de verb. siguf., V, 40. 


The Minister of Extreme Unctron 81 


teaches, at least implicitly, the necessity of ministry by a priest. 
Eugene IV, in his Constitution ‘‘Hzultate Deo,’’* stated: 
‘‘Minister hujus sacramentum est sacerdos.’’ Soon after came 
the declaration of the Council of Trent, only to be followed by 
an order of Benedict XIV!8 forbidding pastors to send the holy 
oils to the sick for self-unction. 

Despite such an imposing array of decisions and defini- 
tions, D. A. Boudinhon, as late as 1905, was bold enough to 
declare in the ‘‘Revue Catholique des Eglises’’ 1° that lay people 
could not only anoint one another but also their very selves, on 
the alleged ground that such was. the custom of the patristic 
ages. He seems to have overlooked entirely the definition of 
Trent, declaring ‘‘proprium Ext. Unct. ministrum esse solum 
sacerdotem.’’ The force of ‘‘proprium’’ here has been held 
by positive and scholastic theologians*® to be equivalent to 
‘‘solum;’’ and consequently that it is de fide that priests alone 
ean administer this sacrament. Their conclusion is reénforced 
by a comparison of the language of the Council of Trent on 
the minister of Confirmation. The Council”! did not call the 
bishop the minister ‘‘proprius’’ of Confirmation, but the min- 
ister ‘‘ordinarius.’’ Thus allowance was made for the delega- 
tion to a priest of the power to administer that sacrament. No 
such deduction is possible from the language of the Council 
with regard to the minister of Extreme Unction. 

Neither has the argument much weight which holds that, 
since Extreme Unction has matter already consecrated, it can 
like the Eucharist be validly administered by anybody. In the 
first place, administration of the Eucharist is not its confection, 
whereas administration of Extreme Unction includes its confec- 
tion. Indeed, many theologians have held that the very fact 


17 Nov. 22, 1439, paragr. 14—C. I. C. Fontes, No. 52. 

18 Const. ‘‘Ex quo,’’ March 1, 1756, paragr. 47—C. I. C. Fontes, No. 438. 

19 July, 1905, vol. II, p. 401, sqq.; cf. also ‘‘Canontste Contemp.,’’ vol. 
XXX (1907), p. 643 sqq. 

20 E.g., cf. Suarez, disp. 43, s. 1, n. 2; Nugnus, in Suppl. S. Thom., q. 31, 
a, 2; Gonet, Clyp. Theol. Thomist., t. VI, de Ext. Unct., dis. 3, a. 2, 
paragr. 14, p. 716; Mastrius, Th. M., disp. 22, qu. 6, a. I; Frassen, 
De Sac. E. U., disp. 3, q. 3, con. 2; Sylv. Maurus, t. III, q. 260; 
Drouven, De Re Sacr., 1. 7, q. 4, ¢. 2; Sasse, De Sacr., t. II, p. 264; 
Gihr, Die hl. Sakramente, t. II, p. 294; Pohle-Preuss, The Sacra- 
ments, vol. IV, p. 38; Heimbucher, Die hl. Olung, p. 240; Tanquerey, 
Th. D., III, p. 545. 

21 Sess. VII, De Confirmatione, can. 3. 


82 Extreme Unction 


that the matter has been consecrated is a reason for the need of 
a consecrated minister.22 


There are three patristic texts which on first face seem to 
afford a basis for Boudinhon’s contention. The first is from 
the much-quoted letter of Innocent I: ‘‘Non est dubium quod 
de fidelibus aegrotantibus accipi vel intelligi debere, qui sancto 
oleo chrismatis perungi possunt; quo ab episcopo confecto, non 
solum sacerdotibus sed omnibus uti Christianis licet in sua aut 
suorum necessitate inungendo.’’23 


Divorced from its context, this quotation seems rather con- 
vineing; but a review of the entire epistle will furnish the 
correct impression that the doubt decided by Innocent was not 
whether or not the ministration of this sacrament might be ex- 
tended to the laity, but rather whether it was an exclusively 
episcopal function or not. Decentius questioned even the validity 
of priestly unction, and hence there was no query at all about 
the capability of laymen in the matter. The word ‘‘uti’’ is 
used in a passive sense, i. e., ‘‘uti licet,’? sed ministerio sacer- 
dotum.** Some authors* maintain that an official and a private 
use of the oil has been distinguished by the Pope—and that, 
consequently, the unction, when private, was merely a sacra- 
mental, while the official unction was a sacrament whose admin- 
istration was reserved to bishops and priests. The Pope in no 
way—as is deducible from the mention of ‘‘priests’’ in the 
passage—considered the unction by laymen as identical with 
that of the Jacobean rite, but at most he regarded it as a devo- 
tional use of the oil, probably for charismatic purposes. To 
understand this text in a causative way, i. e., that the laity 
should have the oil at hand so as to insure anointment by 
priests is not impossible, nor altogether irrational. It does seem 
however to have a foreed, unnatural meaning; for we have an 
abundance of evidence declaring the charismatic and devotional 
use of the holy oils by the laity in the early centuries.2* Schell 


22 Cf. St. Bonaventure, Comm. in. lib. quarti Sent., dist. xxiii, a. II, qu. I. 

23 Ep. ‘‘Si instituta ecclestastica,’? 19 Mar. 416, cap. 8, M. P. L., 20, 559; 
also C. I. C. Fontes, No. 19, 

24 Cf. Hurter, Th. D. Comp., III, p. 478, footnote 1. 

25 Cf. ecb i The Sacraments, IV, p. 14; Bord, L’Eatréme Onction, 
p. 102. 

26 Cf. 8. Thom. Aquin., Suppl., q. 31, a. 1 ad 2. 


The Mimster of Extreme Unction 83 


suggests another explanation:*’ The Pope’s decision is prob- 
ably to be understood as applying to a sort of unction by desire 
in case if necessity (an analogue of lay confession), manifest- 
ing the patient’s good will to do what is in his power.?8 

St. Eligius, bishop of Noyon (640-59), in his treatise ‘‘De 
Rectitudine Catholicae Conversationis,’’ wrote: ‘‘Qui aegrotat 
in sola Dei misericordia confidat, et Eucharistiam corporis et 
sanguinis Christi cum fide et devotione accipiat, oleumque bene- 
dictum fideliter ab Ecclesia petat, unde corpus swum in nomine 
Christi wngat et secundum Apostolum oratio fidei salvabit in- 
firmum et alleviabit eum Dominus,’’ ete.?9 

This text loses all corroboration of Boudinhon’s contention 
when it realized not only that many manuscripts read ‘‘unga- 
tur’’ instead of ‘‘ungat,’’ but also that the custom of the Greek 
language often allowed the use of the active form in a passive 
sense. St. Eligius was speaking of the anointment ‘‘in nomine 
Christi’’ and ‘‘secundum Apostolum.’’ Hence he referred to 
the unetion performed as the Apostle prescribed, i. e., by 
priests. Moreover, it was not infrequent for the Greeks to speak 
of the subject in the active voice (6 roay, 6 ronoas 76 ebx€édaLor) 
or in the middle voice (6 érakerWapevos), All these conspire to 
show that St. Eligius was speaking of the reception rather than 
of the administration of this sacrament.®° 

The third text is a very ancient one whose author was prob- 
ably St. Caesar of Arles. It reads thus:* ‘‘Quoties aliqua in- 
firmitas supervenerit, corpus et sanguinem Christi ille qui aegro- 
tat accipiat; et inde corpusculum suum ungat ut illud, quod 
scriptum est, impletur in eo: ‘Infirmatur aliquis, inducat pres- 
byteros et orent super eum, ungentes eum oleo’ ... Videte 
fratres, quia qui in infirmitate ad Eeclesiam cucurrerit, et cor- 
poris sanitatem recipere et peccatorum indulgentiam merebitur 
obtinere.’’ 

The very arguments that have been advanced against the 
other texts are of the same avail here. It is clear that a passive 
27 Kath. Dogmatik, III (II Teil), 623. 

28 Cf. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, IV, p. 41-42. 

29 n. 5—M. P. L., 40, 1178. 

30 Cf. Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 16-17. 

81 Serm. CCLXV, in app. Serm. S. August—M. P. L., 39, 2238; cfr. 


Revue Benedictine, vol. XIII (1898), p. 209; Revue d’histoire et de 
litterature religieuses, vol. X (1905), p. 606. 


84 Extreme Unction 


sense must be given to ‘‘ungat’’ in this quotation. How could 
an unction by one’s own self fulfill in anyway the precept, 
‘‘Infirmatur aliquis ... inducat presbyteros ... et orent super 
eum, ungentes ewm oleo?”’ 


It is inescapable therefore that the sacerdotality of the 
minister in Extreme Unction is absolutely essential for the valid 
confection of this sacrament. ‘‘Hoc sacramentum valide admin- 
istrat .. . solus sacerdos.’’ 

The Canon reads however—‘‘omnis et solus sacerdos.’’ The 
seope of ‘‘omnis’’ is in no way circumscribed or qualified. Hence 
it follows that excommunicated, suspended, interdicted and de- 
graded priests are included. The valid administration of the 
sacrament is a function of Orders—and the power of Orders 
is not destroyed by any fulminations of the Church. 

A priest, however, cannot anoint himself, as Clericatus 
holds.32 His stand is based mainly on three arguments: 1) 
Since it is not repugnant in a case of necessity for a physician to 
cure himself of a bodily illness, neither is it repugnant for the 
priest, as spiritual physician, to apply this spiritual medicine 
to his own soul when it is sick. 2) Qui potest plus, potest etiam 
et minus. It is permitted to a priest to administer to himself, 
outside of Mass, the Holy Eucharist, when there is no other 
priest or deacon present, even for devotion’s sake. Consequently 
it is lawful for a priest to administer to himself Extreme Unce- 
tion, especially in case of extreme necessity. 3) In Matrimony 
the ministers and the subjects are the same persons. Hence, 
since there is no repugnance in the fact that the ministers are 
identical with the subjects, in case of Extreme Unction he who 
administers can be he who receives. 

These arguments are groundless. In the first place, eccle- 
siastical history adduces few, if any, examples of a priest admin- 
istering the sacrament to himself. This is a clear indication 
that there is in the Church a firm persuasion, derived from 
Tradition, that a priest. cannot impart to himself the aids of 
Unction any more than he can give himself sacramental abso- 
lution. Furthermore, since Extreme Unction is the comple- 
ment of Penance, and since a priest cannot administer Penance 


32 Decisiones Sacramentales, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ dee. 75. 


The Minister of Extreme Unction 85 


to himself, the presumption is against his capability of anoint- 
ing himself. 

Again, it is not true to assert that the administration of 
Communion is a greater thing than to anoint, for in the admin- 
istration of Communion there is no confection of a sacrament. 
There is simply the application of a sacrament already confected, 
an application permitted even to lay people in the times of the 
persecutions. With regard to Matrimony, it can be replied 
that the spouses do not administer the sacrament to themselves, 
but rather to one another. 

There is a certain incongruity in the case of one anointing 
himself. There does not seem to be the fulfillment of the cir- 
eumstances that the Jacobean text considers. One can hardly 
summon himself, pray over himself, and do the various other 
things connoted or presupposed by the Jacobean text.23 More- 
over, Baptism, though of maximum importance, eannot be ad- 
ministered to one’s self; and finally the sacrament of orders 
is not in bonum privatum, but rather propter utilitatem fidelrum 
—it is a grace gratis data not for one’s own sanctification, but 
for co-operation in the justification of others. 

There has been a specific decree of the Congregation for 
the Propagation of the Faith on this very point. On March 
23, 1844, it declared ‘‘inspectis ipsis divini eloquii verbis, vel 
facile patet, sacramentum Extremae Unctionis etiam in casu 
necessitatis, absente nimirum alio presbytero, non posse mis- 
sionarium aegrotantem sibi metipsi ministrare.’’*4 


‘‘Omnis sacerdos.”’ 

An inspection of the rituals of the Greek and Western 
Churches will reveal a difference in regard to the number of 
the priests required for the administration of this sacrament. 
Likewise the text of St. James speaks of ‘‘priests’’ while this 
canon uses the singular number. How are these. seeming essen- 
tial discrepancies to be explained? 

The solution of the problem lies in the interpretation of 
the words ‘‘inducat presbyteros ecclesiae.’’? Many explanations 
have been attempted. Berti®® argues that the expression 13 


83 Cf, Diana, Op. Coord., t. II, tr. IV, res. 39. 
84 Ferraris, Prompta Biblioth., Suppl., v. ‘“Hat. Uncttio,’’ n. 4. 
85 De Theol. Discip., t. VIII, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ 1. 35, ¢. 8. 


86 Extreme Unction 


figurative (enallage) and hence in reality only one priest is 
meant. The objection to such a solution is not only that it is 
difficult to show from the context but also that it would involve 
the condemnation of the Oriental mode of administration. Peter 
Dens*® and Tanquerey®? improve somewhat on the explanation 
of Berti by holding that the plural is used here so as to include 
the singular number—an idiom not too rare in Scripture. E. g., 
Luke xvii, 14: ‘‘Ite, ostendite vos sacerdotibus,’’ whereas by 
Leviticus, xiv, 2, we know that presentation of one’s self to one 
priest was sufficient.?° Similarly, these theologians assert, St. 
James did not wish to exclude the administration of the unc- 
tion by a single priest, if more priests were not obtainable. 

A better explanation can be given by examining the original 
text. When St. James wrote “‘rpocxadecdcbw rods mpeoBurépovs 
Ths éxxdnotas,’’ he was speaking to men of his own time. 
Side by side with larger cities, where a bishop was encir- 
cled by many priests to aid him in his duties, there lay small 
towns, where the bishop alone, or even a presbyter, discharged 
personally all the sacerdotal functions. James wrote his epistle 
to the Catholic world, not to any particular city, or nation or 
people. Hence when he advised the sick to call in ‘‘the priests 
of the church,’’ he meant the priests of the sick man’s own 
parish church, whether it be the bishop alone or the presbyter 
alone or the bishop with his priests. Suppose, e. g., that St. 
James had said, ‘‘Inducat medicos loci.’’ It would be imme- 
diately clear that the apostle was recommending the use of the 
medical art, and therefore was insinuating that according to 
the locality one or several physicians were to be summoned. 
Thus, too, the apostolic mandate of summoning spiritual physi- 
clans can be regarded. 

There is no solid basis to the contention that the text de- 
mands that several priests be summoned in every case. It does 
not read rpocxaderacbw évious tpeaBurépous but robs per Burépous 
Ths exxAnotas, Accordingly the sacrament would be rightly ad- 
ministered by a bishop, by a priest or by several priests. The 
number of priests ‘‘non spectat ad valorem’’—and one priest 


36 Theol. Mech., De Ext. Unct., n. 7, p. 45. 

ST Thali, LI 7o2a. 

88 Cf. also Matt. 11, 20; xxvii, 44 & 48; Marc., xv, 36; Joan. xix, 29, for 
similar examples. 


The Mwmster of Extreme Unction 87 


is eminently sufficient. Hence it is within the power of the 
Church to define ‘‘pro dwersitate temporuwm et locorum’’ the 
number of priests to be employed in this sacramental function. 
In fact the Church actually exercised this right when she de- 
fined the Western practice of using but one priest in the admin- 
istration of Extreme Unction.*? 

This view is confirmed by a clear and consistent Tradition. 
From the days of the great Fathers there has been in the 
Church a firm persuasion that one priest could validly and 
licitly administer this sacrament. For instance, Callinicius, in 
relating the life of St. Hypatius (366-446) ,4° after a descrip- 
tion of the charity of the saint toward the sick, continues: ‘‘Si 
vero necessitas suaderet, infirmum oleo inungi debere monebat 
abbatem, qui presbyter erat (jv Nap mpecBurépos) et cura- 
bat ab ipso perfici unctionem.’’ Cassiodorus** and Isaac of 
Antioch*? also speak of the minister in the singular number. 
Similarly a large number of the rituals of antiquity make pro- 
vision for but one minister, certifying by actual practice the 
belief of that time.*? In the year 1175, Alexander III made an 
official pronouncement, afterwards incorporated into the decre- 
tals of Gregory IX :*4 ‘‘Sacerdos, uno praesenti clerico, et etiam 
solus, potest infirmum ungere.’’ Later Benedict XIV declared oe 
‘(Nee refert utrum eadem Extrema Unctio per unum vel plures 
presbyteros fiat, ubi hujusmodi viget consuetudo; dummodo 


39 Cfr. Kern, Tract. De Ext. Unct., p. 256; Toner, in the Cath. Encyc., 
art., ‘‘ Ext. Unction’’; Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, vol. IV, p. 42. 

40 Acta SS., 17 June, t. IV, p. 251. 

41 Complex. in Epp. App., ‘‘ Ep. S. Jacobi ad Dispersos,’’ n. IL; ‘*Si quis 
alterius pracgravatur injuria vel corporis imbecillitate quassatur, 
presbyterum dicit adhibendum, qui oratione fideli et olei sancti pe- 
runctione concessa salvet eum.’’ (M. P. L., 70, 1380.) 

42 ‘‘Sacerdotem visitatorem non probatum habent stultae ideoque signa- 
tionem contemnunt ... At potius, 0 mulier, donum quidem tribue 
recluso, sed signationem a sacerdote tuo accipe, Servi Christi... 
afferre solent aegrotos et infirmos ad sanctum altare, non autem 
ipsi oleum conficere audent .. . sed ubi sacerdos regens est plebem, 
observant ordines justitiae’’ (Bickell, S. Isaaci Antiochent Opera 
Omnia, p. I, page 187). 

43 Cf. Martene, De Antig. Ecc. Rit. 1. 1, cap. VII, a. 4 (Ordines XII, 
XXVIII, XXIX); Sacramentarium Gregorianum (ed. by Menard)— 
M. P. L., 78, 225D; ‘‘Ordo ad visitandum vel Perungendum In- 
firmum’’ (Mozarabic rite)—Monumenta Ecclesiae Liturgiae (ed. by 
Cabrol et Leclerq), vol. V, p. 71. 

44 C. 14, X, de verb. signif., V, 40. 

45 Const. ‘‘Htsi pastoralis,’’? 26 Maii, 1742, paragr. V, n. III—C. I. C. 
Fontes, n. 328. 


88 Extreme Unction 


eredant et asserant illud sacramentum, servata debita forma et 
materia, ab uno presbytero valide et licite confici.’’ 

On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent the valid 
and licit administration of this sacrament by several priests. 
Since St. James used the plural, it is manifestly commendable 
that all the priests of the sick man’s church perform the sacra- 
mental rite. Hence where there is no positive law on the subject 
promulgated by the Church for special exigencies, several 
priests may validly and licitly perform the unction. 

This is the unswerving conviction of tradition. Old sacra- 
mentaries of the Latin Church reveal the plurality of ministers 
for this sacrament.*® Martene’s collection’? furnishes striking 
corroboration of this fact. Some Greek theologians*® have so 
insisted on a plurality of ministers as to declare that an admin- 
istration by less than three priests was positively invalid. 

The antiquity of the rite can be deduced from the prac- 
tice of the Orientals who separated from the Church in the 
fifth and sixth centuries. Denziger write: ‘‘Orientales sep- 
tem sacerdotes regulariter huic officio impendere solent vel, si 
pon adsint, quinque vel tres, vel si opus sit, etiam unum.’’*? 

The ritual of the Greeks united with Rome has not been 
without the sanction of ecclesiastical authority. The provin- 
cial council of the Ruthenians, held in 1720 at Zamos, enacte¢ 
this decree: ‘‘Quamquam in graeca Ecclesia receptum fuerit, 
prout aliquando etiam in Latina, ut septem sacerdotes, lisque 
deficientibus tres saltem advocarentur ad ministrandum hoe 
sacramentum, iique omnes et materiam subministrarent et for- 
mam proferrent, sciant tamen pastores, plures ea de causa 
adhiberi solitos sacerdotes, tum ob reverentiam ejusdem ac 
gratiae copiam, quam confert, tum ut plurium sacerdotum preces 
effectum sacramenti coadjuvent. Qua de causa S. Synodus 
statuendum censet, ut si septem aut tres sacerdotes haberi com- 
mode non possint, unus, qui totius Ecclesiae personam gerit, 
46 Cf. Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 325; Sacramentarwwm Gregorianum, 

lc.; Acta S. Chrotildis, cap. iii, n. 19—Acta SS., June 3, vol. I, 
Pp: 2915 Ug S. Hunegundi, cap. iii, n. 20—Acta. SS., Aug. 25, vol. 
47 Mee ae Ordines XII, XIX. 
48 Cf. Symeon of Thess., ‘‘De Sacro Ritu Sancti Olet,’’ c, 288—M. P. G., 


155, 518B. 
49 Rit. Orient., t. I, p. 188. 


The Minister of Extreme Unction 89 


ex cujus virtute hoc sacramentum perficit, illud conferat ac 
infirmo ministret.’°° A few years later this legislation was 
ratified by Benedict XIII in his constitution ‘‘Apostolatus of- 
ficium.’”**! The quotation given on the preceding page from the 
constitution ‘‘Etsi pastoralis’’ of Benedict XIV asserts this in 
similar fashion. Hence it becomes obvious that the difference 
in number of priests administering this sacrament is merely 
disciplinary, and can be regulated by legislation of the Church. 

Today one priest is used in the Latin Church. The Roman 
Ritual leaves place for but a single minister.°? The Greeks 
demand seven priests, if so many are obtainable. Otherwise 
they are content with five, three or one. The reason why seven 
are generally employed is said by some to be on account of 
Extreme Unction’s destructive powers against the seven capital 
sins, by others because of the mystic meaning of the number 
seven in Scripture, by still others because it corresponds to 
the number of organs anointed in the Greek ceremony. Many 
other fanciful reasons have been adduced by Greek devotional 
writers. For instance, Mesoloras tell us:°? ‘O dpiOuos exra 
avénvabev fro terds - - Exta tuepar, erra éBdopades, ETTAPWTOS 
Nuxvia, ErTa uvoThpia, ete. Symeon of Thessalonica®* gives as 
the reason the analogy between the effect of Extreme Unction 
and the command of God, in the prophecy of Isaias, that seven 
priests should stand before the walls of Jericho and blow a trum- 
pet seven times. When this was done, the walls of that city fell 
to the ground. In Extreme Unction seven priests anoint seven 
times, the walls of sin fall down, and make possible the entrance 
of the anointed into the holy city. 

The reason why the Latin Church restricts the office of 
Unction to only one priest is no mystical one. Benedict Lvs 
sorrowfully ascribes it to the sacrilegious avarice of priests of 
the Middle Ages. They demanded a high stipend for their 
work, with the result that many poor died without the sacra- 
ment. Yet others are not so harsh against the memory of these 


50 Tit. III, paragr. 6, De Ext. Unct.—Coll. Lac., t. H, p. 38. 
81 July 19, 1724—Coll. Lac. t. II, p. 2 sqq. 

52 Tit. V, cap. 2. 

53 PEyxeplovoy p. 220. 

54 De Sacro Ritu Sancti Olet, c. 288—M. P. G., 155, 515, 518. 
55 De Syn. Dioc. 1. viii, ¢. 4, n. 6 


90 Extreme Unction 


priests. Kern’® attributes it to a rather widespread custom 
in the Western Church. In testimony of this he points to 
Martene, who found in thirty old Ordines only three which 
require the sacramental co-operation of several priests. The 
origin of such a custom can be assigned to many causes: the 
lack of priests in rural districts; cases of necessity which fre- 
quently occurred and usually demanded an exception; the fre- 
quent interference of other business, thus preventing the attend- 
ance of some of the priests at the ceremony; the desire of 
uniformity in ministering to the sick; and perhaps even the 
cooling of fervor. The consequence was the gradual vanish- 
ment of the practice of having several ministers when admin- 
istering the last rites. 

Just a few words need be said about the rite when admin- 
istered by several priests. There are many possible ways. All 
may anoint each member at the same time and say the form in 
unison; all may anoint the same member at one time, while 
only one says the form; all may say the form while only one 
anoints; all may simultaneously anoint, each anointing a sepa- 
rate member and saying the proper form for that particular 
member. Without a doubt all these methods of unction are 
valid, for the essentials have been placed by the priests as by 
one moral person. 

There are however two questionable modes of unction. 
First, the sacramental rite may be so divided that, while some 
anoint silently, the others recite the form without anointing. 
Menard’? and Martene®® hold that this manner of anointing 
the sick has been prescribed in some ancient rituals. To con- 
fer the sacrament in this way has been denounced by Benedict 
XIV°® very vehemently. Many theologians® consequently think 
that this procedure is invalid. Nevertheless a more benign view 
would admit a distinction in this ease. It is too cruel to hold 
that for centuries several rites, perhaps even the Roman Church, 
did not validly confer Extreme Unction. Since the several 


56 Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 254. 

DUNN DP i iiestooo Sad: 

68 De Ant. Ecc. Rit., 1. I, cap. 7, a. 4, Ord. III, IV, V; also ef. Leeda 
paragr. 4; Catalano, Rit. Rom., t, I Kis 0 333. 

59 Const. “! Etsi pastoralis,’’ May 26, 1742—Coll. Lac. 4.10, Lie 
C. I. C. Fontes, No. 328. 

60 P, Dens, Theol. Mech., ‘De Ext. Unet.,’’ p. 44. 


The Mimster of Extreme Unction on 


priests are morally one person constituting in the name of 
Christ and the Church the sacramental minister of the Unction, 
it is hard to prove beyond the possibility of doubt that the 
sacrament is thus invalidly confected—provided, of course, the 
form be not given a false meaning. Whence it can be concluded 
that in the absolutely extraordinary case, where only two priests 
are present, one without hands, the other without speech, it is 
not prohibited that they should administer Extreme Unction, at 
least sub conditione, by having one priest say the form while 
the other anoints with oil. 

The second mode of unction called into question is that 
used in some places by the Greeks of today. In conferring the 
EKuchelaion each priest separately and successively goes thru 
the various unctions, with their corresponding forms. Such a 
formula is, of course, certainly valid, but the question arises: 
What does the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh 
priests’ actions avail? Is the sacrament conferred seven times 
or only once? Since this involves the question of iterability in 
the same danger of death, the reader is referred to the dis- 
cussion on that point which has been considered in the first 
Chapter (cf. page 51 sqq.). This will also be treated later under 
Canon 940, § 2. 


In the Roman Church today it is generally held that one 
priest alone must be employed in the performance of the actual 
sacramental rite in the administration of Extreme Unction, ex- 
cept in ease of necessity. Such a contingency would arise if 
the patient were so near to death that the unctions could not 
be completed by one priest before the sick man’s demise. In 
such a case it would indeed be allowable to proceed under Canon 
947, paragraph 1, and to use a single unction with a general 
form, but such a procedure is not obligatory, if several priests 
are present who can perform by simultaneous actions the sacra- 
mental rite completely.°? Another case of necessity would occur 
if a priest swooned, was stricken with paralysis or died after 

61 Cf, Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 264. 

62 Diana, Op. Coord., t. II, tr. IV, res. 22; Suarez, disp. 43, s. 2, n. 5; 
S. Alph., Th. M., VI, 724; D’Annibale, Summ. Th. M., III, 417; 
Elbel-Bierbaum, Th. M., Pars VIII, conf. X, n. 217; Kenrick, 


Th. M., IMI, ‘‘De Eat. Unct.,’’ cap. unic., n. 8; Noldin, De Sac., 
438 b; Tanquerey, Th. D., III, 792. 


92 Extreme Unction 


commencing the unctions and before their completion. A sec- 
ond priest may then finish the rite, provided that there be a 
moral unity between the breaking off and the continuance of 
the unctions. Hence if a space of fifteen minutes or more has 
elapsed, the safer way is to repeat the entire sacrament.®8 


II. Tue Licir MINISTER 


2. “Salvo praescripto can. 397, n. 3, 514, 1-3, minster ordt- 
narius est parochus loci in quo degit infirmus; im casu 
autem necessitatis, vel de licentia saltem rationabiliter 
praesumpta ejusdem parochi vel Ordinarii loci, alius 
quilibet sacerdos hoc sacramentum mimstrare potest.’’ 


Logically enough the Code proceeds within the confines of 
the same Canon from a consideration of the valid minister of 
this sacrament to that of its lawful minister. This paragraph 
definitely determines whose right and whose obligation it is to 
administer the sacrament of the dying. It is a corroboration 
and repetition of n. 3 of Canon 462, where the ministration of 
Extreme Unction is enumerated among the functions reserved 
to the pastor. 

This legislative insistence on the pastor’s right im this re- 
gard is well-warranted. As far back as the Council of Vienne, 
official legislation was necessary to stop the encroachments of 
religious on pastoral rights.“ This did not successfully end 
their trespasses—and again the rights of the pastor were held 
up as sacred by Leo X.®° One hundred years later Innocent X% 
vindicated a third time to pastors their rights in this matter. 
In the constitution ‘‘ Apostolicae Sedis’’®’ of Pius IX, an excom- 
munication, reserved simpliciter to the Pope, was directed 
against religious who anointed without due permission. 

As a consequence it is clearly a parochial function. The 
pastor is the ordinary minister of the sacrament. To him its 


63 Tamburini, Moral. Explic., t. II, 1. VI, De Ext. Unct., cap. I, paragr. 
TII, n. 4; 8. Alph., le.; Voit, Th. M., n. 906-07; Analecta Eccl., 
vol. VIII, p. 428 sq.; Noldin, lc.; Augustine, 4 Commentary, IV, 
407-8; Gury-Ferreres, Casuws Consc., II, 786. 

64 C. 1, de privilegtis et excessibus privilegiatorum, V, 7, in Clem. 

65 Const. ‘Dum Intra,’’ 19 Dec. 1516, paragr. 7; C. I. C. Fontes, n. 72. 

66 gage Pepe Sicut,’’? 14 Maii 1648, paragr. 4, I, ad 17; C. I. C. Fontes, 
n. i 

67 12 Oct. 1869, paragr. II, n. 14—Collectanea, n. 1348. 


The Minster of Extreme Unction 93 


administration belongs v9 officii.®8 Since he has this power ordi- 
narily, he may delegate it either in toto or ex parte, either in 
general or in particular.® 

The pastor meant in this canon is the pastor of the terri- 
tory where the man lies ill, not the pastor proprius of the sick 
man. The wording of the Canon is very explicit on this score: 
‘‘Parochus loci in quo degit infirmus.’’ His claim extends over 
all the sick within the limits of his parish whether they be his 
own subjects (by Canon 94) or ‘‘peregrini’”’ or ‘‘vagi’’ (by 
Canon 91). 

Several exceptions are made by law. Im the first instance, 
the administration of the last sacraments to the bishop of the 
diocese is reserved by Canon 397, n. 3, to the dignitaries and 
the canons of the cathedral chapter according to their order 
of precedence. The precedence of dignitaries and canons is 
determined by Canon 408. There it is decreed that, unless 
particular statutes or legitimate customs provide otherwise, the 
dignitaries shall have precedence over the canons, the senior 
canons over the junior, titular canons over the honorary, the 
honorary canons over the beneficiaries. Dignitaries or capitu- 
laries endowed with episcopacy take precedence over all other 
dignitaries or canons who are only priests. Dignitaries take 
rank from the nobility of their dignity or according to the 
common law of precedence.” 

Canon 514 also exempts certain classes from the pastor’s 
jurisdiction. ‘‘In every clerical institute,’’ the Canon reads, 
‘‘the superiors have the right and duty to administer either 
personally or thru another Viaticum and Extreme Unction to 
sick professed members and novices, and to others who dwell 
day and night in the religious house by reason of service or 
education or hospitality or sickness.’ 

Hence every clerical institute, whether exempt or non- 
exempt, whether papal or diocesan, has the privilege of attend- 


68 ‘‘Sacerdoti igitur hujus sacramenti administratio commissa est. Neque 
tamen ex sanctae ecclesiae decreto cuivis sacerdoti, sed proprio pa- 
store qui jurisdictionem habeat, sive alteri, cui ille ejus muneris 
fungendi potestatem fecerit, hoc sacramentum administrare licet.’’ 
(Cat. Conc. Trident., De Ext. Unct., nu. 13.) 

69 Cf. Can. 199, par. 1. 

70 Can. 106, nn. 3 & 5. 

71 Cf. Augustine, 4 Commentary, III, p. 141. 


94 Extreme Unction 


ing to the spiritual needs of its own sick. By clerical insti- 
tutes are understood those orders and congregations, the ma- 
jority of whose members are, or by their constitutions are 
destined to be, in sacerdotal rank.’ 

The first class of sick exempted by this paragraph of Canon 
514 are the professed and the novices. Naturally enough, if 
any exemption were to be made, these should be the principal 
beneficiaries. 

The ‘‘aliive’’ enumerated under this same canon are divided 
into several groups, according to the reason or capacity as a 
resident of the monastery. They must actually dwell, i. e., 
have board and lodging, in the religious house or at least within 
the premises. The term ‘‘domus religiosa’’ is taken in the 
sense of the entire premises of the religious house (intra septa 
monasterw).“2 Accordingly a number of buildings may com- 
pose a domus religiosa, if the religious actually dwell in them. 
Nor is it required that they be joined to the monastery per 
modum unius. No matter how distinct they are from the 
building itself, provided they form part and parcel of the 
place, they are said to be included in the term ‘‘domus reli- 
giosa.’’ Hence hospitals, hostelries, schools, ete., actually within 
the precincts of the monastery are included in the exemption. 
Finally it makes no difference whether the house is subject in 
other ways to the pastor. This exemption in regard to admin- 
istering Extreme Unction still holds.”4 

The first group of non-religious exempt from the jurisdic- 
tion of the pastor are servants who work for the religious and 
dwell within the precincts of the monastery. It is not essen- 
tial that they live within the monastery building itself, but 
simply that they dwell within the confines of the monastery 
(intra septa monasterit). Whether they work for pay or from 
charity makes no difference in regard to this privilege. Postu- 
lants are also included within this group. They are said to 
be in the monastery ‘‘causa famulatus.’’ 

The second exempt group are boarding students, those who 
receive not only education but also board and lodging at the 
72 Cf. can. 488, 4. 

738 Augustine, 4 Commentary, III, p. 142. 


74 Blat, Comm. Tecat., 1. II, p. 562, n. 573, paragr. 1, 2. 
75 Fanfani, De Jure Religiosorum, n. 415. 


The Minster of Extreme Unction 95 


religious house. It excludes ‘‘day-students,’’? but not those 
who live at school except during the vacation period.7® 


The third group are guests, not alone those who, live in the 
religious house habitually,” but even those visiting ‘‘ad tem- 
pus,’’ transients, as pilgrims, travellers, wayfarers, ete.78 Fur- 
thermore, people who come to visit their religious friends with 
the intention of staying one full day and night come within the 
scope of the privilege.79 

The last class is that of sick persons who are cared for by 
religious in their own monasteries. This would hold a fortiori 
if the religious had a hospital on the premises. Augustine® 
notes that workingmen, ete., who would not otherwise come 
under this exemption, if nursed in the religious house, are forth- 
with included. 


‘Diu noctuque”’ signifies the actual commoration for one 
entire day, or at least the actual entrance and reception into the 
monastery with the intention of remaining that length of time.®! 
Genicot is not nearly so liberal. He demands of ‘‘guests’’ a 
stay of ‘‘aliquot dies.’’®? The former opinion seems more prob- 
able. Otherwise the pastor would be compelled to exercise his 
functions in a territory that is really, after a fashion, not his 
own. Furthermore ‘‘guests’’ who may satisfy in a private ora- 
tory the Sunday precept of hearing Mass are those who have 
been received by the ‘‘privilegiatus’’ for one day.88 The argu- 
ment seems to be ‘‘a parz’’ in regard to the meaning of ‘‘cuests’’ 
intended by this canon. 

The obligation to attend any and all of the above-men- 
tioned groups of sick persons falls primarily on the superior of 
the institute. He is not bound to consult or to inform the parish 
priest in the matter, because on him alone devolves the obliga- 
tion of attending these sick. The discharge of this obligation 


7 Augustine, 4 Commentary, III, p. 143; Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., 
IT, 338. 

77 Cf. 8. ©. EE. et RR., July 21, 1848—Bizzarri, Coll., p. 564 sqq. 

78 Augustine, op. cit., p. 144; Blat, Comm. Teat., lib. II, n. 573. 

79 Cf, Fanfani, l.c.; Vermeersch-Creusen, Epit., I, 581, 4. 

80 Op. cit., p. 144. 

81 Cf. Vermeersch-Creusen, Epit., I, 581, 4; Augustine, 4 Commentary, 
III, p. 142; Fanfani, De Jure Religiosorwm, n. 415. 

82 Inst. Th. M., II, 338. 

83 De Locis Sacris, n. 90. 


96 Extreme Unction 


however does not require a personal fulfillment. Another priest - 


may be delegated to perform it, as the Canon allows. 

The second paragraph of Canon 514 vindicates to the con- 
fessor (and his ‘‘vices gerens’’) the right and the duty of 
administering the last sacraments to nuns with solemn vows.®4 
This is due to the fact that these nuns live in papal cloister— 
and the number of persons who may penetrate the sacred pre- 
cinets is strictly limited.8> The confessor’s right extends also 
to all classes of non-religious persons mentioned under the first 
paragraph of Canon 514, provided of course that they reside 
within the precincts of the convent. Consequently female ser- 
vants, alumnae, guests and the sick are to be anointed by the 
confessor, and} not by the parish priest.®® 

The confessor here meant is the ordinary confessor, ap- 
pointed in conformance with Canon 520, paragraph 1. The 
extraordinary confessor is consequently excluded. If there are 
several ordinary confessors, any one of them is competent.* 
The ‘‘vices gerens’’ is the confessor temporarily substituting 
during the absence (for any cause whatsoever) of the ordinary 
confessor. If neither the confessor nor his substitute is at hand, 
any other priest may enter the cloister to anoint.*® 

A still further exemption from the pastor’s jurisdiction is 
made of seminarians. According to Canon 1368 the seminary 
is altogether exempt from parochial jurisdiction; and the rector 
receives the rights of a pastor with regard to everything but the 
administration of matrimony. Consequently it is the right and 
duty of the rector or his delegate to administer Extreme Une- 
tion to all in the seminary. ‘‘All’’ includes the several classes 
mentioned in canon 514.%° 

In every other case the pastor is the minister ordinary. 
The exceptions above noted are taxative—and any attempt to ex- 
tend them has met with a rebuff from the Apostolic See. The Sa- 
ered Congregation of Rites forbade regulars to anoint tertiaries 


84 Only nuns with solemn vows are ‘‘moniales’’—cf. Can. 488, 7. 


85 Canon 600; 8. C. de Rel., 6 Feb., 1924, III, 2, f—A.A.S. XVI, 99; cf. - 


Schaaf, The Cloister, p. 116 sqq. 
86S. C, EE. et RR., May 1788—Bizarri, Coll., p. 348; S. C. de Rel., sbid. 
87 Blat, Comm. Tect., lib. II, n. 573. 
88 §. C. de Rel., sbid. 
89 Cf. Fanfani, De Jure Parochorum, nn. 293, B, and 289. 


ioe 


The Minster of Extreme Unction 97 


of their own order.®® On March 17, 1663, the same Congregation 
vindicated to the pastor the right to anoint collegiate canons 
residing within his parish.®t In 1756 a decision declared that 
it was the function of the pastor, and not of the archpriest, to 
bring Viaticum and Extreme Unction to Dignitaries, canons 
and abbots ‘‘beneficiati’? who had a residence within the par- 
ish.°? Moreover the Congregation of the Propaganda justified 
the action of Dutch pastors in placing obstacles in the path of 
Capuchin missionaries in Holland who were administering with- 
out permission sacraments whose ministration was reserved to 
the pastor.°?> Even Cardinals and titular bishops are not exempt 
from the jurisdiction of the pastor in this regard.** It is 
evident from the above how loath the legislative authority is 
to invade parochial rights on this matter. 


In virtue of paragraph 3 of Canon 514, the pastor receives 
the right of conferring this sacrament in all lay institutes within 
his parish which the Ordinary has not subjected to any special 
chaplain. Consequently all religious of these institutes, to- 
gether with their servants, guests and sick persons must be 
attended by the pastor in whose parish the house is erected. 
There are no exemptions made from this canon. It affects, e. g., 
the Christian Brothers, the Brothers Hospitallers of St. John of 
God, ete., for these are lay institutes. It probably includes the 
Brothers of Mary, for, although some of these are priests, yet 
by far the majority are lay brothers, and it is consequently a 
lay institute. 

Difficulty might arise as to who is competent to anoint in 
an institute of this kind when two parishes overlap because of 
linguistic divisions. According to Augustine,”’ the solution de- 
pends, primarily, upon the will of the founder or foundress, 
and, secondarily, upon the custom of the place. If neither of 
these affords a solution, the Ordinary should be called upon to 
decide. 

It is within the power of the bishop to subject such lay 


90 §. R. C., Spoletana Terrae de Visso, 20 Jun. 1609, ad 1—D. A., n. 271. 
91 §. CO. R., Montis Regalis, 17 Mar. 1663, ad 4—D. A., n. 1255. 

92 8.0. R., 8S. Severi Praeéminent., 18 Dec. 1756, ad 7—D. A., n. 2441. 

93 §.C. P. F., (C. G.), 13 Jun. 1633—Collectanea, n. 73. 

94 Fanfani, De Jure Parochorum, un. 293, B. 

95 A Commentary, III, p. 145. 


98 Extreme Unction 


institutes to the jurisdiction of a special chaplain.°®° He may 
also exempt from parochial jurisdiction ‘‘domus pvae,’’ of any 
nature whatsoever. Hence hospitals, asylums, orphanages, hos- 
telries, or any other institution destined for pious or charit- 
able purposes may for a just and serious reason be confided to 
a special chaplain.®? It is to be noted however that the appoint- 
ment of a chaplain does not per se exempt these places from 
the pastor’s jurisdiction. It is necessary that the bishop make 
specific provision for such exemption.®® When this is done, 
the spiritual duties devolve upon the chaplain. The pastor 
should be notified of this quasi-exemption in order to avoid 
possible friction. Once the chaplain is appointed, the pastor 
may not licitly interfere.°® It would be quite as unlawful for 
him to confer Extreme Unction in such a place without per- 
mission as it would be for the chaplain to confer it in the 
parish. 

In the ease of sisters with simple vows, the pastor of the 
parish is the competent minister, even if they have their own 
confessor. Such sisters are lay religious and have not solemn 
vows or papal cloister. ifence they have not the privileges of 
‘‘moniales.’’ If however they are subject to a special chaplain, 
he alone is competent. 

With regard to Viaticum, Vermeersch!” holds that its rep- 
etition is not reserved to the pastor in the same danger of death. 
This cannot be argued of Extreme Unction, for Extreme Unce- 
tion may not licitly be repeated in the same danger of death. 
Hence each and every administration is reserved to the pastor. 

Finally, attention may be called to the fact that quasi- 
pastors, and, if they are endowed with full powers, parochial 
vicars enjoy the same rights as parocht.1°* Accordingly what 
has been said in regard to the pastor’s right of administering 


96 Can. 464, 2. 

97 Cocchi, Comm. in Cod., Lib. II, Pars I, Sect. II, n. 344; Augustine, 
op. cit., II, p. 544; Blat, Comm. Tezt., hb. II, n. 511. 

98 Cf. Fanfani, De Jure Parochorum, n. 477. 

99 Blat, op. cit., n. 573, paragr. 3; cf. 8S. C. C., Ravennaten. 27 Jun. 1789, 
dub. I—Ferraris, Bibliotheca, v. ‘‘Ext. Unctio,’’ t. III (Romae, 

1886). 

100 Summa Novi Codicis, n. 336; Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 181; 
Fanfani, op. cit., n. 189. 

101 Can. 940, 2. 

102 Can, 451, 2. 


The Minster of Extreme Unction 99 


Extreme Unction to all the sick in his parish applies with equal 
force to those who are equiparated to pastors in law. 


““Tn casu autem necessitatis.’’ 


In case of necessity any priest may lawfully administer Ex- 
treme Unction. The necessary faculty for the licit confection 
of this sacrament in such circumstances is obtained from the 
Code itself. The necessity can be physical or moral.’ The 
former is present when the pastor cannot possibly reach the 
sick person. The latter arises when he cannot be called or can- 
not administer it without most serious inconvenience. A moral 
necessity would be verified also in the case where the pastor 
has incurred excommunication or suspension. Tantamount to a 
moral necessity is the situation wherein the pastor unreasonably 
refuses to anoint personally and to give permission to an- 
other.1°* In this case, a priest may with a safe conscience pro- 
ceed, not only because he may presume reasonably on the per- 
mission of the Ordinary, but also because a priest has from this 
very canon the actual permission of the Pope. Such a priest 
is made by law the extraordinary minister of the sacrament.’ 


“Vel de licentia saltem rationabiliter praesumpta ejusdem 
parocht vel Ordinarvi loci, alius quilibet sacerdos hoc 
sacramentum ministrare potest.’’ 


Since the pastor is the ordinary minister of the sacrament, 
he may delegate any other priest to perform this function.1° 
The vicar oeconomus, or temporary administrator of a parish, 
enjoys full parochial rights, and can, therefore, delegate in like 
manner.2°8 The Ordinary of the place where the man lies sick 
ean also grant permission, ‘‘etiam contradicente parocho.’’!° 
Because of the fact that he can delegate, the Ordinary himself 


108 Blat, Comm. Tezt., lib. III, p. I, un. 281, paragr. 2. 

104 Blat, l.c. 

105 Diana, Op. Coord., tom. II, tr. IV, res. 25; Laymann, Th. M., lib. V, 
tr. 8, c. 6, n. 2; Benedict XIV, De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, c. 4,n. 7; S. Alph., 
Th. M., VI, 723; Elbel-Bierbaum, Th. M., Pars VIII, Conf., IX, 
tom. II, n. 360; Babenstuber, Ethica Supernat., Tract. de Ext. Unct., 
aeLV son: 0; 

106 Blat, l.c. 

107 Can. 199, 1. 

108 Can. 473; cf. 8. C. C., 12 Sept., 1874—A. 8. 8., VIII, 1298; Augustine, 
A Commentary, IV, p. 399. 

109 Blat, Comm. Teat., lib. III, p. I, n. 281. 


100 Extreme Unction 


has the right to administer personally this sacrament within 
his own territory. Delegation of a power presupposes pos- 
session of that same power by the delegator. 

Curates do not need their pastor’s permission, for they 
supply the pastor’s place in the entire parochial ministry. How- 
ever, the pastor can reserve this function to himself, with the 
result that any administration on the part of the curate against 
his will would be unlawful. If the faculties or diocesan stat- 
utes give curates the right of administration, they can bestow 
the sacrament licitly, even against the reasonable will of the 
pastor. In such a ease they have the ‘‘licentia Ordinarii.’’ 44 

Delegation or permission can be made to any priest. How- 
ever, excommunicated or suspended or personally interdicted 
priests are ordinarily not desirable subjects for delegation.1* 
Nevertheless, if the sacrament were sought for a just reason 
from an excommunicatus toleratus, not yet denounced by a con- 
demnatory or a declaratory sentence—or from a suspended or 
personally interdicted priest—license might licitly be given him, 
according to Canon 2261, paragraph 2. Indeed it may also be 
given to a vitandus if no other ministers are present and a per- 
sonal administration by the pastor or Ordinary is impossible. The 
subject of Extreme Unction must, of course, be in danger of 
death—and in such a ease a vitandus becomes a lawful minister.18 

License can be given expressly—in writing, orally or by 
signs—or tacitly, i. e., when permission can be reasonably gath- 
ered from the circumstances. It may also be legitimately pre- 
sumed where, e. g., it is foreseen that it would be readily granted 
or that the pastor would be pleased if he were spared the 
inconvenience of personal administration. This presumption is 
allowable even when there is no canonical reason present for 
the granting of the permission, but a more intimate knowledge of 
the pastor personally is undoubtedly required to justify such a 
presumption. 

Under all these cases a priest becomes the lawful, extra- 
ordinary minister of the sacrament.4* A priest who admin- 


110 Cf. can. 476, 6 and 462, 3. 

111 Augustine, l.c. 

112 Cf. can. 2261, 1; 2284, 2275, 2. 

113 Can, 2261, 3. 

114 Blat, Comm. Tezt., 1. III, p. I, n. 281, page 341. 


The Minister of Extreme Unction 101 


isters Extreme Unction in any other case commits a grievous 
sin, because he invades the right of the pastor ‘‘in re gravt.’’ 
Before the Code regulars who dared this incurred excommunica- 
tion simply reserved to the Holy See.41® Since this censure is 
not included in the present legislation, it is now obsolete.’® 


115 Const. ‘‘ Apostolicae Sedis,’’? 12 Oct. 1869—Coll. 8.0.P.F., n. 1348. 
116 Cf. Can. 6, un. 5. 





CHAPTER IV. 


THE OBLIGATION OF THE 
MINISTER 


CANON 939. 


‘‘Minister ordinarius ex justitia tenetur hoc sacra. 
mentum per se ipse vel per alium administrare, et in casu 
necessitatis ex caritate quilibet sacerdos. 


[103 ] 





CHAPTER IV. 


Mimster ordinarius ex justitia tenetur. 


Laymen have the right to receive from the clergy, in as 
far as ecclesiastical regulation permits, spiritual benefits and 
especially the means necessary to salvation.1 All who belong to 
the Church have a title to the wondrous well-springs of sancti- 
fication she possesses; and on the legitimately constituted dis- 
pensers of these treasures the obligation of imparting them is 
imposed. 

This canon divides the clergy’s obligation according to the 
minister, and binds the ordinary minister from justice and the 
extraordinary minister from charity. 


The ordinary minister of Extreme Unction is the pastor 
of the place where the subject lies sick.2 He is bound to admin- 
ister the sacraments to all who seek them reasonably. He has a 
contract with his people, in virtue of which he receives the 
sustenance, or at least the honor, of a pastor with the obliga- 
tion of performing ‘‘ea quae pastoris sunt.’’ Among the du- 
ties of a pastor the administration of the sacraments in pre- 
éminent.? 

It need hardly be noted that the obligation on the Digni- 
taries and Canons of the Cathedral Chapter (from Canon 397) 
and on the various priests mentioned in Canon 514, arises hke- 
wise from justice—for they are really ordinary ministers of 
the sacrament in regard to certain particular subjects. 

Hence all priests who are charged with the care of souls 
are bound under pain of sin to succor all committed to their 
charge and to administer to them the last sacraments, if they 
are in grave need of them.* Ordinarily, then, they are bound 
sub mortali to administer Extreme Unction to those who seek 
it unless a just cause excuses. If such a priest does not, he 


1 Can. 682. 

2 Can, 938, 2. 

3 Can. 467. 

4 Fanfani, De Jure Parochorum, n. 229. 


[105 ] 


106 Extreme Unction 


has refused to furnish what he is bound ex justitia to do.” The 
consequence is certainly mortal sin. The gravity of the sin, 
of course, is measured by the spiritual loss arising from it; 
and in the sacrament of Extreme Unction the loss sustained 
thru a failure to receive it is almost incalculable.® 

The question arises: Under what incommodum is the pastor 
bound to administer Extreme Unction? Theologians commonly 
hold that pastors are bound ‘‘cum periculo sanitatis aut vitae’’ 
to administer the sacraments absolutely necessary for eternal 
salvation. Hence since the only absolutely necessary sacra- 
ments are Baptism and, for those in mortal sin, Penance, it 
can hardly be said that the pastor is obliged to such a serious 
risk to confer Extreme Unction. Extreme Unction is ordina- 
rily bestowed after Penance and Viaticum, i. e., after the man’s 
salvation has been morally assured.” 

In the time of the plague at Milan, Gregory XIII decided 
that the parish priests of Milan and their curates were obliged 
sub gravi only in regard to the administration of Baptism and 
Penance in the ease of plague-stricken patients. Fagnani® says 
that this declaration was never published. Some time later a 
decision of St. Antoninus, archbishop of Florence (1459), was 
discovered, which ordered pastors to administer all the sacra- 
ments even during times of plague. The question was again 
referred to the Holy See by St. Charles Borromeo. This time 
the Congregation of the Council decided that no general rule 
should be made, but that the saintly archbishop was to be 
advised that pastors were obliged in conscience to remain at 
their posts, ready to administer Baptism and Penance.? Bene- 
dict XIV?° notes that the countersignature of this document at 
Rome and its reception at Milan have not been recorded. Con- 
sequently an argument from this document, such as that em- 
ployed by Noldin™ and Genicot,!* is quite questionable. The 


5 Vermeersch-Creusen, Epit., II, 224; St. Alph., Th. M., VI, 729 &c. 

6 Noldin, De Sac., n. 34. 

T Ret. Rom., tit. V, cap. 1, n. 2. 

8 Jus Canon., seu Comm. Absolut. in Quinque Lib. Decret., lib. III, in 
cap. ‘‘Clericos,’’ tit. IV, n. 45, ‘‘ De Clericis non restdentsbus.’’ 

98. C. C., 12 Oct. 1576, probante Greg. XIII, 8. C. C., 6 Dec. 1576— 
ef. Noldin, De Sac., n. 34; also cf. ‘‘The Casuist,’’ vol. IV, 81. 

10 De Syn. Dioc., 1. 13, c. 19, nn. 6-7. 

11 Noldin, De Sac., n. 34. 

12 Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 119. 


The Obligation of the Minister 107 


learned Pope holds the very opposite opinion. He maintains 
that it is obligatory upon the pastor, even with danger of death, 
to administer Extreme Unction to his subjects.° He bases 
his principal argument upon the Apostolic confirmation given 
to the decrees of the Fifth Provincial Council of Milan. In the 
acts of this Council are found two chapters of synodal legis- 
lation concerning the cautions to be taken by priests while they 
are ministering Extreme Unction and after they have ministered 
it.4 From the context it can be reasonably deduced that the 
legislator presupposes an obligation on the pastor in this in- 
stance. Consequently, even though the official approbation of 
the Council’s proceedings by the Holy See do not give them any 
binding force beyond the territory of its jurisdiction, never- 
theless they may be taken as an indication of the Holy See’s 
attitude on the subject. 

However, it is by far the more common view that the pastor 
is not bound to administer Extreme Unction ‘‘eum periculo 
vitae’’ when Penance has been provided.!® Even theologians, 
like Suarez!® and Sylvius,!7 who insist that it is seriously in- 
cumbent on the pastor to administer Viaticum, excuse him from 
the duty of bestowing Extreme Unction at the peril of his 
life. Although it is dear to the heart of the Good Shepherd for 
a pastor to dare all that his flock may obtain the salutary graces 
of this sacrament of the ‘‘exeuntium,’’ nevertheless he is bound 
in justice to risk his life for his sheep only when their spiritual 
lives are seriously endangered. This is surely not the case when 
the sick person has already been confessed and absolved. 

It is to be noted, however, that when the danger of death 
can be removed or reduced to a negligible quantity by the use 
of disinfectants and the like, a pastor is bound to employ these 
and to confer the sacrament.!8 The advantages are so enor- 
mous that special inconveniences must be suffered in these un- 


aa,0p,. cit., l.c., nn. 8-11. 

14 Apud Acta Eccl. Mediol., pars I, tom. I, pp. 246-8. 

15 Barbosa, De Pot. Parocht, cap. xxii, n. 17; St. Alph., Th. M., VI, 729; 
Vermeersch-Creusen, Eptt., II, 224; Concina, Th. Chr., Lib. I, De E. 
U., diss. I, cap. 3, q. 4; Ferreres, Comp. Th. M., II, 280; Lehmkuhl, 
Th. M., Il, 51; Noldin, De Sac., n. 441; &e. 

16 Disp. 44, sec. 3, nn. 17-20. 

17 In Suppl. ad III p. D. Thom., q. 32, a. 3, conclus. 3. 

18 Barbosa, De Off. et Pot. Parochs, cap. xxii, n. 17; Suarez, d. 44, sect. 3, 
n. 20. , 


108 Extreme Unction 


usual circumstances. The employment of preventive measures 
is not too much to expect of the one who has an obligation to 
care for the spiritual needs of his parish. He must cope with 
the contingencies of extraordinary situations in a reasonable 
fashion. When too much is not demanded to overcome the 
dangers on these occasions, he is required to put himself to 
inconveniences which are proportionate to the benefits which 
the souls under his charge will receive as a result of his trouble. 
The immense advantages that accrue to the sick person thru the 
potent graces of Extreme Unction certainly demand that no 
slight pains be taken by those in charge of souls to remove 
the causes which excuse them from bestowing the sacrament. 

There is also the common opinion that if Extreme Unction 
is the only hope of salvation, e. g., if the dying man has not 
been to confession for a long time and ean be absolved only 
conditionally now because unconscious, there is then a grave 
obligation on the pastor to give Extreme Unction even at the 
peril of his life® The Synod of Namur (1639) passed the 
following enactment: ‘‘Qui autem peste affectus non est con- 
fessus, nee potest confiteri, pastor teneatur illi extremam unc- 
tionem, etiam cum periculo vitae, dare.2°’’ The reason is, of 
course, that Extreme Unction gives sanetifying grace to those 
who have only attrition for their sins and cannot make a econ- 
fession. Since the acts of the penitent are at least the quasi- 
matter in the sacrament of Penance, the value of an absolution 
imparted conditionally to an unconscious man without previous 
confession is very dubious indeed. Extreme Unction is left as 
the sole sure means of assisting the dying man. 


In order that a priest be strictly bound to endanger his 
life in the behalf of a soul under his care, it is quite necessary 
that all the conditions demanding such heroism be verified ada- 
mussim. In the first place it must be required that the subject 
be truly in grave peril of his eternal salvation. Secondly, the 
means which the priest has at his command must be certainly 
sufficient to relieve the patient from his necessity. Moreover the 


19 Fanfani, De Jure Paroch., n. 229; Noldin, De Sac., n. 34; Genicot- 
Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 119 & 421; Sebastiani, Summ. Th. M., 
n. ends Konings, Th. M., n. 1505, q. 3; Vermeersch, Th. M., III, 
n. , &. 

20 Tit. xiv, c. x; ef. Kenrick, Th. M., III, de Ext. Unct., cap. unic., n. 14. 


The Obligation of the Minister 109 


hope of rescuing the sick man must be morally assured; and 
finally no graver evils must result from the fulfillment of this 
obligation. If any of these conditions is lacking, the severity of 
the obligation is relaxed. 

Accordingly, if the priest is morally certain that the sick 
man is in the state of grace, either because he has not sinned 
since his last confession or because of his ability to make an 
act of perfect contrition, he is excused from risking his life to 
administer Extreme Unction. If he knows nothing or is in 
doubt about the state of conscience of the sick man, Suarez 
holds that a priest is obligated to hazard certain danger of 
death in order to anoint the sick man. ‘‘Adverto non satis 
esse,’’ he writes,?4 “‘quod parochus negative se habeat, ignorans 
statum infirmi, ut (ex generali regula) praesumat illum esse in 
bono statu, quem non scit esse in malo; hujusmodi enim prae- 
sumptio postulatur ad ea quae sunt favorabilia alteri; non vero 
hieet illa uti ad negandum illi debitum ministerium, et expo- 
nendum eum periculo saltem dubio aeternae damnationis . . 
Requiritur ergo ut positive constet moraliter de bono statu 


bonaque dispositione poenitentis.’’ Later authors are not so 
exacting as Suarez. They demand simple probability, not moral 
certainty, of the state of grace in the sick man. ‘‘Non tene- 


retur Parochus,’’ Cappello ** declares, ‘‘aliusve certo periculo 
vitae se exponere, si probabiliter putaret, ex gr., moribun- 
dum... non reperiri in statu culpae mortalis vel sibimet con- 
Sulere posse per contritionem perfectam.’’ Fanfani?* similarly 
speaks of the pastor’s obligation as absolute only when the 
Subject is certainly in mortal sin. Vermeersch** is equally as 
liberal in his application of the general principle, and he notes 
further that the strict obligation can never be laid upon a 
priest in regard to anointing a sick man who has become un- 
conscious. The uncertainty of the sick man’s dispositions, he 
avers, excuses the priest from walking into a certain danger of 
death. There is certainly enough authority for a pastor to 
follow the milder opinion. He can refuse to enter a certain 
danger of death for the purpose of anointing under every cir- 


21 D. 44, s. 3, n. 15. 

22 De Sacramentis, I, 67. 

23 De Jure Paroch., n. 229. 
24 Th. M., III, nn. 190, 658. 


110 Extreme Unction 


cumstance where the absolute need of his attendance upon the 
sick man is not evident. The deduction of Vermeersch, assert- 
ing the uncertainty of the sick man’s dispositions in every case 
where the sick man is unconscious, seems too sweeping. A fair 
indication of the internal dispositions can be obtained at least 
sometimes, and especially in such cases as contemplated by 
Canon 943. 

Moreover, the success of the auxilium proffered by the 
pastor must be morally certain. Hence, if the priest sees that 
he will probably be hindered from administering the sacrament, 
he is not bound to undergo a certain imperilling of his life. 
Similarly, if he feels that he may not reach the sick person on 
time, yet such attempt on his part will result fatally for him 
(as in times of persecutions), he is released from the strict 
obligation of attendance.?° 


Finally, if it is foreseen that graver evils will result from 
the fulfillment of his office in this regard, the priest is not 
bound to submit himself to such an inevitable jeopardy of life. 
Private good must cede to the common good. Hence if the 
pastor knows that, by his death, the salvation of the community 
will no longer be sufficiently provided for because of lack of 
priests, he is excused from hazarding himself at such a price.”® 
This problem may arise often in missionary lands, where the 
harvest is great and the laborers few. In times of persecution 
a similar question may arise. In 1899 the Holy Office was 
asked about the duties of missionaries in the kingdom of Bu- 
ganda, a land where the faithful were compelled to conceal their 
faith. Attendance by the missionaries upon the sick meant 
imminent danger for the sick man, his family, and indeed the 
whole Christian community. Hence the question was put: 
‘“‘atrum ad hoe periculum praecavendum missionarii possint 
ac debeant infirmos non visitare, an, spreto quolibet periculo 
sive privatorum sive communitatis Christianae, aegrotos in 
gravi moriendi periculo constitutos visitare possint aut debeant 
ut illos sacramentis Keclesiae reficiant?’’ The query was not 
directly answered, but there is undoubtedly an insinuation that 
the missionaries are not bound, at least, to render spiritual 


25 Of. Fanfani, De Jure Parochorum, n. 229; Cappello, De Sac., I, 67. 
26 Suarez, D. 44, sec. 3, n. 15; Vermeersch, Th. M., III, 190; Fanfani, l.c. 


The Obligation of the Minister 111 


assistance to the sick. The words of the reply were: ‘‘R. Ad 
mentem: mens autem est a missionariis fideles monendos ut, 
attenta difficultate habendi missionarii adsistentiam in mortis 
articulo, omni studio satagant peccata vitare, et in mortis peri- 
culo mutuam sibi adsistentiam praebeant; ac insuper missionarii 
bene instruant catechistas, qui in expositis casibus missionaril 
vices aliqua ratione fungantur.’’?? 


Just as the certain and complete fulfillment of every con- 
dition is necessary to impose a strict obligation on the pastor 
when the danger is serious and certain, so a solidly probable 
realization of these identical conditions is needed to create a 
rigid responsibility of anointing a sick man when it entails 
probable danger of death to the priest. ‘‘Hadem regula,”’ 
writes Cappello 78 ‘‘ .... valet quoque, congrua congruis refe- 
rendo, ubi agitur de gravi necessitate, ob quam sacramenta mini- 
stranda sunt cum periculo gravi et probabili sanitatis aut vitae.’’ 
In order, then, that the pastor must risk a probable danger of 
death, it is necessary that the subject be probably in grave 
peril of losing eternal salvation and that success of the venture 
be probably assured. ‘‘Si solummodo probabilis sit successus vel 
necessitas, obligatio pro pastore manet quidem cum probabili 
vitae periculo.’’?9 

The obligations of the pastor when Extreme Unction is the 
sole means of salvation can be briefly summed up. If it is 
morally certain that the patient will not attain salvation except 
thru the ministration of the priest and if there is moral cer- 
tainty of the successful outcome of the priest’s attempt to 
confer the sacrament, a priest in charge of souls is bound in 
justice to brave certain danger of death, and even death itself, 
to confer the sacrament upon the dying man. However, if the 
common good will subsequently suffer thru the loss of the priest, 
the advantage that will accrue to the particular individual must 
be regarded in relation to the greater good that will be gained 
by the community. Hence in such a ease a priest is released 
from this severe obligation. Indeed he may often be bound 
not to attend a sick person, as, for example, when he is sure 


27 §. C. 8. Off., 3 Apr. 1899; ef. Bucceroni, Casus Consc., II, n. 138, p, 218. 
28 De Sacr., I, 67. 
29 Vermeersch, Th. M., ITI, 190. 


112 Extreme Unction 


that his demise will seriously imperil the eternal salvation of 
many others in the community. In this case it is a question of 
the lesser evil. 

When the subject is in grave necessity, i. e., when he is in 
probable need of the sacrament and there is probability of its 
successful bestowal, the pastor is required ex justitia to expose 
his life to a probable danger of death. In this he differs from 
those who have not the charge of souls, as will be seen shortly, 
for they are bound gravely to attend a sick man only when 
he is in extreme necessity.®*° 

The question of the priest’s obligation in the cases con- 
templated by Canon 941 is also worthy of consideration. The 
general principles announced hitherto must be put into play 
in the determination of these solutions also. The pastor by 
virtue of his office is bound to give the sacraments to those 
reasonably seeking them. His flock have a right to the recep- 
tion of these gifts absolutely if they are absolutely capable, 
and conditionally if they are doubtfully capable of benefitting 
by them. They are entitled to everything which will morally 
assure them of salvation and which at the same time is within 
the bounds of reason. 

Consequently a pastor is bound to anoint conditionally a 
child who has only doubtfully attained the use of reason. Such 
a child cannot make a confession and, since the conditional abso- 
lution is of very questionable efficacy, the eternal safety of the 
child is not properly secured except by an administration of 
Extreme Unction. By virtue of his office the pastor then has 
the duty of conferring the sacrament. This obligation is cer- 
tainly grave,?! and only a very serious inconvenience excuses 
from it. Blat®? says the measure of the obligation is to be 
gauged according to the terminology of our Canon. It stands 
to reason, however, that a priest is not bound to enter the same 
degree of peril to give this sacrament to a child who needs it 
only probably as he would be obliged in the case where an 
adult would swrely need it for salavtion. 


80 St. Alph., Th. M., II, 30; Collet, Decal., cap. 1; Gury, Th. M., I, wu 
215; Ferreres, Comp. Th. M., II, 281. 

31 Lehmkuhl, Th. M., II, 723; Gury-Ferreres, Casus, II, n. 799; Lebherz, 
in The Casuist, vol. II, p. 176; Cf. St. Alph., Th. M., VI, 719. 

32 Comm. Tezt., lib. ITI, p. I, n. 285. 


The Obligation of the Minster 113 


A distinction must be drawn here which will be of use 
very soon. <A child has more than a probable right to the 
sacrament. He has a certain right to a conditional administra- 
tion of it. Only thuswise is he sure of salvation; and his title 
to the means which will ensure his salvation is not only prob- 
able but certain. Accordingly since the child’s claim upon 
the parish priest is certain, he will be obligated under serious 
inconvenience to do all for the salvation of this soul in his 
charge. 

The second ease for consideration is the obligation upon 
the pastor to anoint in cases of apparent death. For these 
men, unable, of course, to confess, the sacrament of Extreme 
Unction will be the only sacrament of avail—if indeed any 
sacrament at all will be of avail. As has been said often before, 
the value of conditional absolution is too problematical. Ex- 
treme Unction becomes per accidens necessary necessitate medi, 
if these subjects are in mortal sin. 

The solution would be easy if the patient were certainly 
known to be but apparently dead. Dissolution would not have 
yet truly occurred; the subject would still be a ‘‘viator,” 
having a claim upon the pastor’s services as much as the rest 
of the Church militant under such a priest’s care. But there 
is no certainty in this case—and consequently the solution of 
the case must depend upon the principles of probability. One 
of the most important considerations that must be noted in 
gauging the priest’s obligation is the length of time since the 
first appearance of apparent death. Naturally the duty of the 
pastor dwindles in proportion to the distance from the seem- 
ing cessation of life. The manner of death must also be investi- 
gated. As shall be seen in the treatment of Canon 941, the 
occurrence of somatic death in lingering sicknesses is much 
quicker than in sudden eases of accident. In the former in- 
stances the soul probably takes its departure within an hour 
after the greater vital functions cease; in the latter several 
hours or even a day may elapse before the real separation of the 
soul from the body. 

While the man is probably alive, he has a right to the 
sacraments, provided that all the other conditions necessary are 
present. Consequently the pastor is bound to administer them 


114 Extreme Unction 


to the souls in his care, for they have a claim to his attention 
especially in these urgent cases. Their title to a conditional 
administration is reasserted by the Code in Canon 941. The 
law says ‘“‘ministretur sub conditione,’’ not ‘‘potest ministrar1 
sub conditione.’’ Accordingly there is an obligation in justice 
upon the ordinary ministers to perform this conditional admin- 
istration; and similarly a duty in charity upon the extraordi- 
nary ministers.23 Where there is solid probability that the 
man is not yet dead, the obligation is seriously binding on the 
ordinary minister to give this sacrament even at the cost of 
grave inconvenience. 

The consensus of theological opinion is that a man is very 
probably alive for a half-hour after apparent demise in linger- 
ing illnesses, and at least an hour in sudden accidents. Conse- 
quently within these times a priest in care of souls is bound 
sub gravi to administer this necessary sacrament.** O’Malley,** 
claiming strenuously that somatic death does not occur for at 
least an hour in every instance after seeming dissolution, feels 
that the priest who does not anoint within that time is just as 
guilty as if he refused to anoint a man evidently alive. Many 
extend the obligation of the pastor in cases of sudden death to 
two hours and even longer.2® Genicot,?* on the other hand, re- 
stricts it to a half-hour; and Ferreres, in his appendix to the 
Casus,3® binds the priest strictly only for that same period of 
time. The opinion which obligates a priest for one-half hour 
in lingering diseases and an hour for sudden accidents seems 
very reasonable. In the first place a distinction should be made 
between the two modes of meeting death; and secondly, the 
priest must not be bound beyond the dictates of reason to an 
unseemly lengthy period after the appearance of death. After 


33 Blat, Comm, Teat., lib. III, p. I, n. 285. 

84 Sabetti-Barrett, Th. M., n. 828, gq. 6; Gury-Ferreres, Casus, II, 1213; 
Ferreres, Comp. Th. M., Il, 856; Noldin, De Sac., n. 294, nota 1; 
Villada, Casus, p. 235; Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 322; O’Neill, 
aera Eecel. Record, Fifth Series, vol. 26, (1925), pp. 515-17 and 

85 The Ethics of Medical Homicide, p. 88. 

86 E.g., Noldin, De Sac., n. 294, nota 1; Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., 
p. 322; Antonelli, Medicina Pastoralis, II, 1026; &c. 

87 Inst. Th. M., II, 422. 

38 Gury-Ferreres, Casus Conc., II, n. 1213; Cf. Synod of Madrid, lib. 2, tit. 
3, const. 6, p. 194; Synod of Orense, const. 78, p. 48 (Orense, 1908) ; 
Prov. Council of Saragossa, c. 6, tit. 2, pag. 92 (Caesaraugust., 1908). 


The Obligation of the Minister habe 


such time the obligation of the priest lessens as the approach 
of certain signs of death become evident. It is quite enough 
that he may confer the sacrament after this period of strict 
obligation. Zeal will dictate more than justice; but, on the 
other hand, works of supererogation are not to be made to spring 
from duty. Consequently, although it is slightly probable that 
men snatched away thru unforeseen accidents may have latent 
life even for several days, the proportion of chances to the 
contrary is so overwhelming that it smothers all obligation of 
conferring the sacraments on the part of the pastor. 

The obligation of the pastor in the case of those who are 
doubtfully in danger of death®® can be dismissed without much 
difficulty. If there is any danger that the spiritual welfare of 
the patient will not be sufficiently secured by a conditional 
administration while the danger is still doubtful, the pastor is 
bound sub gravi to give the sacrament. If, however, the delay 
required to determine the exact status of the sick person will not 
be of any great detriment to the sick person, there cannot be said 
to be a grave obligation on the minister ordinary until certain 
danger of death does appear. 

In the treatment of Canon 940 cognizance is taken of the 
opinion allowing the administration of Extreme Unction to non- 
Catholics. Probability—at least, external—must be admitted of 
this opinion. However the question of the pastor’s obligation 
in justice to confer Extreme Unction upon these persons pre- 
sents no problem. The ordinary minister is bound ex justitia 
only to the souls under his charge. The prescription of Canon 
1350, 1, ordering him to consider the non-Catholics in his dis- 
trict as ‘‘commendatos sibi in Domino’’ certainly does not ex- 
tend to this case. At most, non-Catholices have a tenuously prob- 
able right to a conditional administration—if indeed they can 
be said to have any right at all. Thus they differ from Cath- 
oles who have doubtfully attained the use of reason, &e., for 
these have a certain right to a conditional administration.®® 
The title of those not in the Church to these aids of salvation 
is very hazy and befogged. Otherwise there would be no need 
to safeguard the reverence due the sacrament thru the attach- 
ment of so many conditions to the administration as is required 





39 Cf. supra, p. 112 sq. 


116 Extreme Unction 


when the Unction is imparted to non-Catholics. Moreover, those 
who claim that there is any obligation at all are careful to 
stress that it arises from charity and not from justice. Con- 
sequently a pastor is not bound vi sui muneris to administer 
Extreme Unction to the non-Catholics of his district. 

The question of the pastor’s obligation of repeating Ex- 
treme Unction will best be considered in the treatment of Canon 
940, 2. Accordingly it is passed over here, with the remark that 
if the danger is new and distinct, the obligation on the pastor 
is new and distinct. These cases present no difficulty; but 
problems can arise in instances where the patient is afflicted with 
a lingering disease. Since several contingencies must be taken 
into consideration in connection with these cases, the treatment 
of the strict duty of the pastor is best discussed at that time. 


The pastor is bound to give Extreme Unction to all the 
sick—not to the rich alone, nor to the plague-stricken alone, but 
to all sick Christians in his care. This was inculeated time 
after time by Clement XII,4° while Benedict XIV*! denounced 
with scorching scorn the hypocritical heroism of some mission- 
aries in the Indies who, though giving their life in the service 
of the vineyard, thought it too menial to attend the ‘‘pariahs.’ 


Tantamount to a refusal to administer the sacrament (and, 
therefore, mortally sinful) is a serious delay, if such delay puts 
the sick man in probable danger of dying without the sacra- 
ments.4*2 The Roman Catechism* states that it is a serious sin 
for the pastor to defer anointing until the ‘‘ultimum vitae 
tempus’’—and even to the time when ‘‘mors proxime instat.’’ 
Such a delay deprives the sick man of several special effects, 
e. g., help in the last agony, possibility of corporal sanation, 
&e., which would have been to him of paramount importance. 
Hence as Canon 944 says: ‘‘Omni studio et diligentia curan- 
dum ut infirmi dum sui plene compotes sunt, illud recipiant.’’** 


40 Litt. ap., ‘‘Compertum,’’ 24 Aug. 1734, dub. XII, C. I. C. Fontes, 
n. aos litt. ap., ‘‘Concredita Nobis,’’ 13 Maii, 1739, C. I. C. Fontes, 
n. : 

41 Const., Omnium sollicitudinum,’’ 12 Sept. 1744, paragr. 14, dub. XII, 
paragr. 26, 33 sqq.—C. I. C. Fontes, n. 348. 

42 Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th.-M., II, 119; Fanfani, De Jure Parochorum, 
n. 229; Kenrick, Th. M., III, De Ext. Unct., cap. unic., n. 20; &c. 

43 Cat. Conc. Trid., De Ext. Unct., n. 9. 

44 Cf. treatment of this question infra, chap. viii, p. 


The Obligation of the Minister 117 


‘Per se vel per alium’’ 

A pastor can fulfill his obligation thru his curate or thru 
any priest who accepts the permission (licentia) of the pastor.*® 
Consequently though bound to formal residence in his parish 
in times of plague, yet he is not bound to the personal admin- 
istration. Noldin*® and others‘? hold that if the dying man 
asks for the pastor expressly, he is obligated to attend him 
personally unless impeded by more serious business. Since 
however the strict letter of the law allows a fulfillment of the 
obligation ‘‘per alium,’’ it is hard to see how he 1s bound in 
justice to a personal administration of this sacrament.‘ It is, 
of course, most desirable that the pastor should go if personally 
summoned; but to bind him in justice to this is quite a differ- 
ent thing. Rule 72 of the Regulae Juris seems very apt: “Oai 
facit per alium, est perinde ac si faciat per seipsum.’’*° 


“Et in casu necessitatis ex caritate quilibet sacerdos.”’ 


In case of necessity any priest is bound to administer Ex- 
treme Unction. His obligation arises from charity, for by 
charity we are bound to succor our neighbor when he is in 
ereat need.®° All theologians hold that such aid must be prof- 
fered even with the peril of life if the neighbor is in extreme 
necessity. Hence it would follow that a priest 1s bound—and 
sub gravi—to administer the necessary sacraments to those in 
extreme spiritual need.®? 

A man is said to be in spiritual necessity when he is in 
danger of losing his eternal salvation. He is in extreme neces- 
sity when he cannot help himself, and hence without outside 
aid is in peril simpliciter or moraliter of eternal damnation. 
Practically tantamount to this extreme case is that of quast- 
extreme necessity, i. e., where without external assistance, peril 
ef losing salvation is very imminent. In grave necessity are 


45 Blat, Comm. Tect., 1. ITI, p. I, n. 282. 

46 De Sacr., n. 34, 3. 

47 Wernz-Vidal, Jus Canon., II, De Personis, n. 736; Cappello, De Sac., I, 
68; Vermeersch, Th. M., III, 190. 

48 Suarez, d. 44, s. 3, n. 12; Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 119; 
Ferreres, Comp. Th. M., II, n. 841; Woywod, 4 Practical Com- 
mentary, I, n. 860; Blat, Comm. Test., lib. III, p. I, n. 282. 

49 Cf. also reg. 68 (in VIto): ‘‘Potest quis per alium quod potest facere 
per se ipsum.’’ 

50 Cf. Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., I, 217; &e. 

51 Cf. Noldin, De Sac., n. 35; Genicot-Salsmans, op. cit., II, 120; &c. 


118 Extreme Unction 


those who can assist themselves only with great difficulty, and 
accordingly are in probable danger of missing salvation unless 


externally assisted. 


To constitute the obligation a grave one it must be certain 
that the auzilium be absolutely essential, that the peril of the 
neighbor be positively certain and that the hope of saving him 
be at least morally assured.®* As a result, since ‘‘hoce sacra- 
mentum per se non sit de necessitate medii ad salutem,®? a man 
can never be said to be in extreme need of Unction except in 
the case considered in Canon 9438, where a man, desirous of 
receiving the sacrament, has become destitute of his senses be- 
fore being able to confess. For him Extreme Unction is the 
‘‘medium unicum’’ of salvation. In such a contingency a priest 
would be bound ‘‘ex caritate sub gravi cum periculo vitae’’ 
to administer it. The eternal life of his neighbor is to be 
preferred to his own temporal existence.°4 Of course the con- 
ditions must be verified strictly which impose a strict duty 
upon the priest to risk his hfe for his neighbor. Hence, if there 
is a probability that the patient has made an act of perfect 
contrition ; or if it is probably that he will die before the priest 
could reach him; or if more serious evils will follow from the 
loss of priest’s life, there cannot be said to be an obligation 
to subject one’s self to serious peril.°° Vermeersch-Creusen 
holds that the obligation to administer Extreme Unction binds 
in no instance that entails grave risking of life, because the 
internal dispositions of the man are always uncertain.®® It 
seems, however, that, sometimes at least, as noted before, a fair 
indication of the internal dispositions of the man can be got, 
especially when the case of Canon 943 is verified. If it is seen 
that such a man has only attrition for his sins, the obligation 
to administer the sacrament even at the risk of health and 
life binds a priest, though he has not the care of the sick man’s 
soul ex officio. 

In grave necessity the obligation from charity is grave 


52 Cf. Ferreres, Comp. Th. M., I, 304; Noldin, De Praecep., n. 78; &e. 
53 Can. 944. 

54 Ferreres, l.c.; Noldin, l.c. 

55 Noldin, l.c. 

56 Fpit., II, 224. 


The Obligation of the Minister 119 


per se. However, a proportionately grave inconvenience excuses.” 
Consequently, it would be a mortal sin to refuse Extreme Unction 
in the case where the sacrament can be easily given to a man 
in sin unable to confess.°8 Outside of this instance, Extreme 
Unction will hardly be necessary to relieve the grave spiritual 
necessity of the patient; and hence there will be no serious 
obligation on the priest to impart it. 

All these cases suppose, of course, that there is no priest 
at hand who is bound ex justitia to do this work. If he is 
present and willing to administer the sacrament, there is no 
obligation on the priest who has not the care of souls. 


57 Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 120; Ferreres, Comp. Th. M., II, 
304; Noldin, De Sac., n. 78. 
58 Genicot-Salsmans, op. cit., n. 421. 













Ter rkt - Pee a way ; ois ak 
: i . +? . * ' ‘ ; re ey . ¥" i. 
14 pas re y . , . Rt fe ane 
i toe) etree A iey Ie ar SPREE eM ec 
sR RON Mastic eae asta si a 
he 


, “hiatisaseass Pha AEN sneer bea 
y fpeinclt nat ne iy die as al eee et 
“ek MAE ta a ana ad ey. '4 ape ceva) . oP tod 


. Sepia.  Y mae ns a ‘e i Lovie ks 3 BM aye heey Ot 
ist ipereak aaa Gy 7), a ea 4’ rts é a ata otore Fie rata Lie WF 


eee qa 4 f it Pf eras Ay ee ria 3 oe + Pays oie at ‘ Re , 

Pa | sh ? \ io we Xa * , ao ey; 7 ‘ 6%, 
J a : " rte at ag ay ng ani? ce tht 4 
"i Leaf PR a aA) a aes ae Mahe ty a niet ha 


Oy re “ee 


Te, ee 


*, . 


1S SN r Piet eet 
fs Mie * 4 Be A a a2 ahi a DE y ee Pek, hatha’ or “ 


¥ 
i 


Ait id Ae adh) She ae Se ae rise k "ex et Bh ie 
-- - < : ais * FoLe 43 i >) uh 
an e ne a ee. ae ) ; NA 
- ate bat Pe ey a oe oa) f ba, a: Wy, ae sg oie: 
. +o. ‘ a ) 5 f iy: 

bh pl Cte ae M A ea Aut i 

ay p J P| fe ir : Sr 4 
f ‘ ; _ a ) < * _ é Vb oe he 2 ne Pent ee A, et a dey Tom < 
Ce : ‘ : Pe Ate Pe! eh hee ‘i 

Be | > ial ea ss iN ry suet 

; f } ’ dh f ’ 


ae LU [oe 
Pe Pl PLS Notes 


a 


a aad 
# 
© 
9 = 


: 7% * f 
: e al 
j & 
a ; + 
: < eres : igi % 
. ; ex 
; es F wie pe 
’ ee a €; 
; ae ee eed ee 1% 
f i Fey ow ye Lag 
‘ ot Macs’ 
én oe 
iJ | ods. o VNR RE Fi ¥ 
ei) 
’ ar 4 . ox a 4 ie : 
{ ‘ : a 
{ ' j aT ‘pL 
4 ms u! 
§ ¥ es 5 - 
é 
— ; a? ripe? % 
; ifs ‘ 
d Muar pea Ae on 
: 
) 
p ‘ whey Ts : 
LL NE, Piha al a Sp 
st i 
‘i 5 1 ai? Lue i Ue PA, 
‘ F : ae x 
4 vy af, 7, 465 - a a vf coe dey 
F (Ry eT Re eae Ee 
' ‘ 
2 rao § 
} 7 P ¥ a a cut am fe i") 
hag 
\ aly it & Ce G 
‘ty or 1 "he Ae, i g ye hk i. uh =] 


~ og »* : ‘ 
vik : PE aveas i ae er ee he es, ete 


* : fh > 7 ; 
| | ee. be ans thy. en ge at ae 4 


vay! 
5 ee Vy? iT > 
. ‘ : ay * 
F U - Vir. t ey a ahs 2 m] 
ytd ee Mas ees ath Dena. 
+ 
' 
i 
, 
es 
? 
Vi, i 
4 
. 
ie «4 all 
° 
ay I 
ss - ~ 





CHAPTER V. 


REQUISITES IN THE SUBJECT FOR 
ADMINISTRATION AND 
REPETITION 


CANON 940. 


1. Extrema Unctio praeberi non potest nisi fideli, 
qui post adeptum usum rationis ob infirmitatem vel se- 
nium in periculo mortis versetur. 


9, In eadem infirmitate hoc sacramentum iterari non 
potest, nisi infirmus post susceptam unctionem convalue- 
rit et in aliud vitae discrimen inciderit. 


[121 | 





Se ty 











“se LAS bet Sy wR 4S Pe © ae, Ve ri 


i. A ew : ‘ iW hadT Ai A ‘ J” a] ¢ 4 ‘ in a be t. 
ee ha ethos 4 yah hate ure tat a 3 * wry 


’ ¥ ; 
t® oe teed ms 4 + 4 
. - i ' i ai > © 
7 4 ' ¥ , . 
> 
¥ ‘ ay 
“ A vi 7 


SHEP") ; ; irons sug he reas bite 
ee a iy a p 1. a i 
pS, FAR REE Sy RAND TN ot tena ‘ui Bie we hs care. 

4 4 es 


a: 


bets ne ib 


8 ’ ’ 7. fees i . 


‘bes Pak” oe Mm 2 fate cy a) aM Lt : on of 
oe LIE OA La Sy reba a sce tu ty 


_ f a ‘ n y on a 4 3G5 
| ' yn ay: Pang! 
Cis, CO 2 ea ae ade 


CE TO. aa aaa ae WD PAA LS PROT, GR 
i; viak rat est Haeieonhss pais: 


rt 








CHAPTER V. 


I. REQUISITES FOR ADMINISTRATION. 


Extrema Unctio praeberi non potest nisi fidelt, gut post adep- 
tum usum rationis 0b infirmitatem vel senium in perrculo 
mortis versetur. 

The first paragraph of this canon announces in a remark- 
ably succinct fashion the conditions essential for the valid re- 
eeption of Extreme Unction. Its negative form excludes all in 
whom each condition is not found. The subject must present 
three qualifications: 

1. He must be a “‘fidelis.’’ 

2. He must have acquired the use of reason 

3. He must be in danger of death from sickness or old age. 
All three must be verified before administration can be validly 
made. Each is worthy of distinct consideration. 


iL 
“‘Eatreme Unctio praeberi non potest mst fidelr’’ 

In the first place, the recipient of Extreme Unction must 
be one of the faithful. The Code uses the term employed in 
the days of the catechumenate to distinguish those who had 
been baptized from ecatechumens. Nowadays it has come to 
mean those who have attached themselves to the Church, who 
have accepted her doctrines and who have been initiated into 
her rites. Hence those who are members of the true Church 
are meant, at least principally and primarily, by the term 
‘*fidelis’’ in this canon. 

The problem of just how much can be done for dying 
Protestants has been agitating the theological world in recent 
years. The result seems to be a gradual increase in leniency 
and generosity in extending the conditional administration of 
the sacraments, whenever possible, to almost every dying man. 
Thus if a man is a baptized non-Catholic, some tell us that he 
is to get conditional absolution and Extreme Unction. If he 
is not baptized he is to receive conditional baptism and condi- 


[ 123 ] 


124 Extreme Unction 


tional Extreme Unction. If dubiously baptized, he is to have 
conditional baptism, conditional absolution and conditional Ex- 
treme Unction. Consequently when the Code declares that the 
first requisite of the recipient of Extreme Unction is that he 
be a ‘‘fidelis,’’ the question of anointing non-Catholics can 
hardly be side-tracked. 

Many hold that heretics and others not in the Church are 
in no way entitled to the sacraments of the Church and that 
it is unlawful for priests to administer such to them. They 
have splendid intrinsic reasons for their contention. 


The Jacobean text should first be noted. The apostle used 
the words, ‘‘infirmatur quis in vobis,’’ and all exegetes say 
that ‘‘vos’’ signifies the Catholic portion of the dispersed twelve 
tribes to whom the epistle was addressed.1 Innocent I, in his 
famous letter to Decentius, gives this very interpretation of St. 
James’ text: ‘‘Sane quoniam de hoe sunt, ete. Quod non est 
dubium de fidelibus aegrotantibus accipi vel intelligi debere, 
qui sancto oleo chrismatis perungi possunt.’’ 2 


Moreover the term ‘‘fidelis’? was used by the Fathers to 
denote only those who had completed the catechumenate and 
had been initiated into the Christian mysteries by the reception 
of Baptism. Tertullian? complained that some heretics were 
losing sight of the distinction that must be made between the 
‘faithful’? and eatechumens. This was a very important dis- 
crimination in the early Church. The ‘‘faithful’’ were entitled 
to assist at the holy Sacrifice, to join with the priest in the 
‘‘oratio fidelium,’’ to receive the Body and Blood of Christ 
and the other sacraments. The catechumens had to leave the 
Holy Sacrifice after the sermon at the command of the deacon. 
The terms ‘‘faithful’’ and ‘‘Christian’’ were by no means co- 
extensive, as a text from St. Augustine clearly shows. ‘‘Ask 
a man,’’ he writes,* ‘‘ ‘Are you a Christian?’ If he be a pagan 
or a Jew, he will reply: ‘I am not a Christian.’ But if he say: 
‘I am a Christian,’ ask him again: ‘Are you a catechumen or 
one of the faithful?’ ”’ 


1 Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 560; Bord, L’Extréme Onction, p. 57. 

2 Ep. ‘i instituta ecclesiastica,’? 19 Mar. 416, cap. 8—M. P. L., 20, 
559; C. I. C. Fontes, n. 19. 

3 De Praescr., cap. XLI—M. P. L., 2, 56. 

4 Tract. in Joan, XLIV, 2—M. p. Te 35, 1714. 


Requisites in the Subject for Admimstration 125 
and Repetition 


The juridical argument is very convincing. On five differ- 
ent occasions the Holy See has declared that Penance (of which, 
be it remembered, Extreme Unction is the complement) was 
not to be given to schismaties or heretics. On February 4, 1664, 
the Congregation of the Propaganda® demanded an explicit belief 
in the supremacy of the Pope from Greek schismatics wishing 
to be absolved. In two decrees, dated August 28, 1669, and 
May 15, 1709, the Holy Office® forbade the administration to 
Nestorians. On September 22, 1763, the same Congregation’ 
allowed the approach of Greek schismaties to Catholic churches, 
provided they were given no sacraments, that they did not com- 
municate ‘‘in sacris’’ and that they had not been invited thereto. 
Practically the same answer was given in 1806 for soldiers 
who were doubtful Catholies.® 

The new Code seems to support this view rence 
Canon 731, 2, apparently teems with finality: ‘‘Vetitum est 
Sacramenta Ecclesiae ministrare haereticis et schismaticis, etiam 
bona fide errantibus eaque petentibus, nisi prius, erroribus 
rejectis, Ecclesiae reconciliati fuerint.’? The fact that this 
Canon, although not found in the Schema of 1918, was later 
inserted in the Code is not without significance. 

The change of wording in the Rituale is also noteworthy. 
Older editions of the rubrics used the word ‘‘non-baptizatis.’”® 
The present edition ‘‘ad normam Codicis’’ uses ‘‘fideli.’’ Cer- 
tainly there is furnished by this revision an added foundation 
for the opinion which forbids to non-Catholics a participation 
in our sacraments. 

The force of the word ‘‘fidelis’’ is of paramount importance 
in the question at issue. Even today the word means ordinarily 
more than a heretic; and in fact, is often employed in contra- 
diction to a non-Catholic. Launoi!® defines it thus: ‘‘ Fidelis 
autem est qui Baptismum suscepit et se in Christi familiam 
ageregavit.’’ Similarly Blat™ interprets it to signify “‘baptizatus 

5 (C. G.) Constantinop., Collectanea, n. 156 ad 2. 

6 §.C. 8S. Off., Mesopotamiae—Collectanea, n. 185 ad 1; tbid., n. 276. 
7 Collectanea, n. 450. , 

8 Collectanea, n. 688. 

9 Rit. Rom., tit. V, cap. 1, n. 8—edit. 1913. 


10 Op. Omnia, 7a Rage 560. 
11 Comm. Text., lib. III, p. I, n. 284. 


126 Extreme Unction 


habens fidem.’’ They have evident good reason for this, be- 
cause nowhere in the Code ean ‘‘fidelis’’ be construed to include 
those outside the fold of faith. For example, in Canons 1161, 
1162 /3, and 1169 ‘‘fideles’’ certainly does not comprehend 
within its scope either heretics or schismaties.1* In Canon 1188 
the right is given to all the faithful to enter public oratories 
at the time of divine services. Yet heretics, who are excommun- 
icated by Canon 2314/1, have no such right, according to Canon 
2259 /1. Consequently they are not ‘‘fideles.’’ 


Furthermore, in Canon 906, which commands that ‘‘ommnis 
utriusque sexus fidelis’’ shall approach the tribunal of Penance 
at least once a year, there can be no doubt that only Catholics 
are meant. In Canon 925, which enumerates the capabilities 
of the recipients of indulgences, uses ‘‘baptizatus, non-excom- 
municatus’’ &e. According to Vermeersch-Creusen,!* non- 
Catholics who have escaped the censure on account of good 
faith can gain indulgences. Yet this extension to non-Catholies 
seems to rest solely upon the fact that the Code does not use 
the term ‘‘fidelis.’’ 


Perhaps the clearest example of the meaning of ‘‘fidelis’’ 
is Canon 1152. By that canon exorcisms can be performed ‘‘non 
solum in fideles et catechumenos, sed etiam in acatholicos vel 
excommunicatos.’’ Here the specific mention of non-Catholies 
as lawful subjects would indicate very strongly that where such 
mention is not made, those outside the Church are not suitable 
recipients. 


From a juridical standpoint there seems to be no. other 
solution. The wording of the law is too explicit. Yet it cannot 
be denied that the more merciful opinion, permitting conditional 
administration of the necessary sacraments to dying non-Cath- 
olics, has at least extrinsic probability ; to establish this a rather 
copious examination of the various pronouncements of the 
Roman Congregations and the writings of theologians must be 
made. 


12 Cf. also canons 119; 465, 6; 467, 1 & 2; 483, 2; 684: 687: 707: &c. 
13 Epit., II, 214. ’ 2 %3 ’ ’ » @) ’ ’ ’ 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 127 
and Repetition 


The most important, of course, are 
A) The decisions of the Roman Congregations. 


Long before Quebec became the flourishing centre of Cath- 
olicity that it is today, the missionaries there spreading the 
gospel of Christ asked of the Holy Office: ‘‘Utrum conferendum 
sit Viaticum aut Extrema Unctio moribundis adultis, quos ali- 
quando Baptismi capaces credimus, non autem Communionis 
aliorumque Sacramentorum?’’ The answer returned by the 
Congregation was this: ‘‘Non esse administrandum Viaticum 
neophyto moribundo nisi, &. ... Non esse pariter conferendum 
Sacramentum Extremae Unctionis neophyto moribundo quem 
missionarius eapacem Baptismi credidit, nisi saltem idem habeat 
aliquam intentionem recipiendi Sacram Unctionem in beneficium 
animae pro mortis tempore ordinatam.’’!* In the following cen- 
tury the Propaganda" affirmed this decree; and the very words 
were repeated in a later answer of the Inquisition '* to a similar 
question from the Orient. 

When questioned about the practice existing in Jerusalem 
of absolving dying heretics and schismatics conditionally with- 
out insisting on a sign of reconciliation to the Church, the Holy 
See replied: 

‘‘Usum de quo quaeritur, prout exponitur, esse improbandum; 
et ad mentem: La mente e de accennare a Mons. Patriarca de 
Gerusalemme che, qualora il moribondo eretico o scismatico avesse 
dato un qualche signo su cui fondare un ragionevole dubbio che 
quegli aderisca alla santa Chiesa cattolica, in tal caso i preti di 


quella delegazione dovranno seguire le norme dettate da accreditati 
autori.’ 717 


To the question ‘‘An aliquando absolvi possint schismatici 
materiales, qui in bona fide versantur?’’ the same Congregation 
replied: ‘‘Cum scandalum nequeat vitari, Negative: praeter- 
quam in mortis articulo, et tune efficaciter, remoto scandalo.’’”1® 


14 §, C.-S. Off., 10 Maii, 1703—Collectanea, n. 256, ad 8. 

15 §.C. P. F., (C. P. pro Sin.), 26 Sept., 1821—Collectanea, n. 768. 

16 §, C. 8. Off., Tchely Mertdio-Orientalis, 10 Apr. 1861—Collectanea, n. 
1213. 

17 §. C. 8. Off., 13 Jan. 1864—Collectanea, n. 1246. 

18 §. C. 8. Off., 20 Jul. 1898—Collectanea, n. 2012; A.S.8.. XXXI, 254. 


128 Extreme Unction 


On May 26, 1916, the Holy Office gave a most important 
decision, which was never published officially. The question 
was asked about the lawfulness of conferring absolution and 
Extreme Unction upon schismaties deprived of their senses and 
in danger of death. The answer rendered was: 


‘¢Sub conditione, affirmative, praesertim si ex adjunctis conjicere 
liceat eos implicite saltem errores suos rejicere, remoto tamen 
seandalo, manifestando scilicet astantibus Ecclesiam supponere eos in 
ultimo momento ad unitatem rediisse.’ 719 


This enumeration of decisions constitutes a very serious 
alignment of authority in defense of the proposition. The Que- 
bee decision demanding an intention of receiving the Unction 
does not militate against this view. Some intention is always 
required in adults; but the fact that it need not be very explicit 
is insinuated in the employment of the term ‘‘aliquam inten- 
tionem.’’ Hence a general intention of doing all that is nec- 
essary for salvation would include implicitly a desire to receive 
the Unction.?° And in every Protestant it can actually be taken 
for granted that his principal and primary intention is that of 
doing all that Christ commanded for salvation. Even the 
slightest conjecture about the presence of such an intention is 
sufficient to act upon, for theologians of great weight hold this 
to be permissible. Gury, for instance, says: ‘‘In casu extremae 
necessitatis etiam in Sacramentorum administratione licet uti 
opinione etiam parum fundata.’’! Furthermore it is to be 
remembered that theologians admit the permissibility of con- 
struing even the vaguest sign as indicative of the intention. 
Neither is to be lost sight of that when a general absolution is 
given to an army on the battlefield, the validity of the absolution 
is sustained on the ground that the sign is knowable, but in 
many cases actually unperceived by the minister.22 The infer- 
ence is that the minister is justified in administering Extreme 


19 Cited by Prummer, Manuale Th. M., III, p. 223, from Lintzer Theol. 
Quartalschr., 1916, 693; and by Reuter, Neo-Confessarius, n. 203, 
from Kolner Pastoralblatt, 50, (1916), 504 sq. 

20 Cf. Lehmkuhl, Th. M., II, 66: ‘‘Voluntas christiano more moriendi 
includit in se voluntatem recipiendorum in articulo mortis sacramen- 
torum Eecl.’’ 

21 Comp. Th. M., II, n. 505 ad II. 

22 Cf. King, The Administration of the Sacraments to Dying Non-Cath- 
olics, p. 24. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 129 
and Repetition 


Unetion on such grounds, because of the very tenuous prob- 
ability that the sign has been given, though unperceived by 
himself. 

In regard to the decisions of 1864 and 1898 it is to be 
noted that they have to do only with Penance. Yet since Ex- 
treme Unction is the complement of Penance, an a pari argu- 
ment can be made. Of course it cannot be denied that scandal 
is more easily given in administering Extreme Unction to a 
heretic than Penance. Absolution can be made secretly even 
in the presence of bystanders, while unction in such a ease is 
far more difficult. But scandal is something extrinsic, and 
does not avail against the intrinsic parity existing between 
Penance and its complement. No sacrament, not even Penance, 
can be imparted if scandal will follow. Hence, granted the 
removal of scandal, there is not valid reason why the admin- 
istration of Extreme Unction cannot be extended to every case 
where the imparting of Penance is permissible.**7 Thus Gury, 
in settling a case in his Casus Conscientiae, wrote: ‘‘Si vero 
eum aliqua probabilitate nune ad se redierit aliquis haereticus 
moribundus et videatur aliquod doloris signum edere, etsi 
dubium, tamen tentanda sunt omnia. Sed etiam in hoe casu 
parochus 1) condicionate tantum sacramenta administrare po- 
test; 2) unctionem etiam clam tantum, ne alius sit scandalo.’’ *4 


The proximity of the 1916 decision to the issuance of the 
Code presents a curious question, if canon 731, 2 is to be applied 
to all cases. One year before the encyclical of Benedict XV, 
‘‘Providentissima,’’ at a time when the schemata of the Code 
had been broadeast to all parts of the world for the final inspec- 
tion of the bishops, the Sacred Congregation issued an instruc- 
tion giving a norm of action in regard to the administration of 
the sacraments which they knew could be of value at most for 
but a few years—if the Canon is to be absolutely interpreted. 
It is true, as Augustine”® says of a similar argument in another 
case, that this has very little juridical value; but on the other 


23 This does not exclude the possibility that the imparting of Extreme 
Unction may be forbidden by positive and specific legislation, whereas 
Penance may not be. This phase will be later considered. 

4 Gury, Casus Conscientiae, (edit. 1902), n. 625-626. 

5 A Commentary, IV, p. 353, footnote. 


to to 


130 Extreme Unction 


hand it must be insisted that the Congregation of the Inquisi- 
tion would hardly be guilty of such action as this. Roman 
Congregations do not move so hastily. 

Reuter-Lehmkuhl-Umberg attempt to explain the question 
away in this fashion: 


‘“Petes, quid agendum sacerdoti si intelligat haereticum esse 
ad extrema deductum? Resp. Inprimis prae oculis habendus est can. 
731, 2: ‘Vetitum est sacramenta Ecclesiae,’ &. Quo canone vetatur 
Sacramentorum collatio haereticis et schismaticis a) mala fide erran- 
tibus, erroribus non rejectis; b) etiam bona fide errantibus, si simul, 
sul compotes, sacramenta petunt, erroribus non rejectis. Et sic 
Ecclesia hoc canone enuntiat, quid quasi officialiter concedat hac in 
re, quid non concedat. Ut vero sciamus, quid Ecclesia, pia mater, 
non-officialiter permittat, consulenda est decisio S. Officii d. 26 Maii, 
1916, eo vid. tempore facta, quo canon ille sine dubio jam erat 
elucubratus. ’’26 


B) The writings of theologians and canonists 


To the decisions of the Congregations can be added a host 
of eminent theologians and canonists, who, feeling that the 
sanctity of the sacrament is sufficiently safeguarded by a condi- 
tional administration, are mercifully impelled to extend its ad- 
ministration to every possible case. They believe with Tam- 
burini: ‘‘Negotia in quibus nihil amittendum timetur, sed potius 
lucrum speratur, audacter sunt tentanda.’’2? 

In his Commentary upon Canon 731, 2, Vermeersch-Creu- 
sen writes: 

‘*Regula haec nulli exceptioni locum dat cum agitur de personis 
benevalentibus. Necessitas tamen consulendi, in periculo mortis, 
saluti animae, permittit ut moribundis acatholicis sacramenta necessi- 
tatis stricte vel late dictae (paenitentia et extrema unctio) admini- 
strentur, saltem condicionate, si sensibus destituti sunt, vel si, sensibus 
praesentes, in bona fide prudenter linquendi videantur. Ac sensibus 
destitutus, certius quam absolutione sacramentali, juvabitur extrema 
unctione, quae non exigit actus subjecti tanquam quasi-materiam 
sacramenti. Cavendum tamen est a scandalo vel miratione populi, 
si extrema unctio non possit satis secreto ministrari.’’28 


Vermeersch might have some trouble proving that Canon 
731, 2 applies only to the administration of the sacraments to 
26 Neo-Confessarius, n. 203. 


27 Moral. Explicatio, 1. VI, cap. TI, paragr. 3, n. 3. 
28 Fpit., II, 16. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 131 
and Repetition 


subjects who are well. . Extreme Unction, it must be remem- 
bered, can be given only to the sick in danger of death. It must 
then be held that Canon 731, 2 does not apply to Extreme 
Unction at all. Yet the canon simply uses ‘‘sacramenta’’ with- 
out any modifying phrase that might insinuate the exception 
of Extreme Unction. Recalling the rule, ‘‘Legislator quod 
voluit expressit,’’ it is rather hard to see the strength of Ver- 
meersch’s reasoning. 


Now if Extreme Unction is included among the sacraments 
spoken of in Canon 731, 2, and if the recipient of Extreme 
Unction must be a ‘‘fidelis’’ in the common acceptation of the 
term, it seems that the Church has exempted by positive legis- 
jation the sacrament of Extreme Unction from the alignment of 
aids that may be offered to non-Catholics when they are dying. 
Perhaps this is why Pruemmer 7° allows the administration of 
Penance to a dying Protestant, yet does not permit the bestowal 
of Extreme Unction. 


With varying degrees of liberality other authors allow ad- 
ministration to Protestants in danger of death. A writer in 
the Cusuist, does not extend the lawfulness of administration 
to cases where the man is still conscious.2° The reasons he 
proffers are that it is not a necessary means of salvation and 
that it can scarcely be given without grave scandal. Kern*? 
limits the bestowal of the sacrament further. He holds that it is 
lawful to anoint such heretics only who in good faith adhere to 
a sect which confesses the sacramental dignity of Extreme Unce- 
tion. This would reduce the lawful subjects to the Oriental 
Orthodox Greeks, the Nestorians and the Monophysites. Other 
Protestants, the author thinks, have not sufficient intention. 


Murray,** a Redemptorist, writmg in the Homuiletic and 
Pastoral Review, admits the allowability of anointing all dying 
heretics, who are in good faith and who ean be considered to 
have even the most tenuous probability of receiving the sacra- 
ment. Both this writer and Vermeersch make note of a reply 


29 Manuale J. C., 1. III, p. I, de Sac., proem.; this was also the view of 
Kenrick, Th. M., III, p. 223 & p. 265. 

30 Vol. ITI, p. 43. 

31 Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 317. 

32 Vol. XXVI, (1926), p. 412 sqq. 


132 Extreme Unction 


of the Holy Office, dated March 17-20, 1916, which demands of 
the heretic formal reconciliation with the Church. Vermeersch 


explains the decree as follows: 


‘‘Neque obstat particulare et tantum in ephemeride dioecesana 
vulgatum responsum §. Officii, 17-20 Maii 1916, quo negatum est 
schismaticis materialibus in mortis articulo constitutis, bona fide 
absolutionem sive Extremam Unctionem petentibus, sacramenta ista 
conferri posse, sed requiri ut ‘meliori quo fieri possit modo, errores 
reiciant et professionem fidei faciant.” Responsum enim istud dat 
reguiam generalem do solis schismaticis quibuscum facilius peccari 
potest quodam indifferentismo, et qui, ob ipsam petitionem, videntur 
satis commode adduci posse ad errorum abjurationem; nec casum 
contemplatur quo periculose, pro animae aeterna salute, bona fides 
turbaretur. ’ ’33 


Similarly Pruemmer * lays little weight on this decision of the 
Holy See. 

Hanley is also very liberal. ‘‘It is given,’’ he writes,*? 
‘‘to all baptized persons who are in good faith, if the priest 
prudently judges that it may be done.’’ ULehmkuhl allows an 
administration only to unconscious heretics: 


‘‘Tmmo in iis haereticis baptizatis quod in bona fide versari 
sumi potest, fortasse remedium reconciliationis erit, applicabile utique 
tantum si sensibus destituti fuerint, atque si externae sint conditiones 
ejusmodi, ut sine majoris mali periculo haec adjumenta valeant; 
quamquam etiam quoad hoe remedium satis dubium est, num in piis 
illorum hominum actibus, qui praecesserint, sufficiens intentio con- 
tineatur. Kern id admittit quoad eos haereticos tantum, quorum 
sectae profitentur extremae unctionis sacramentum. [is igitur, si in 
bona fide existunt, sacramentum dari posse, certum est; ceteris, etsi 
in bona fide sint, dari non posse, ita certum non est.’ ’36 


If we except the argument from positive and specific legis- 
lation, there is no reason why Extreme Unction cannot be given 
when Penance can. And indeed the explanation given by Reuter 
ean be used in.order to escape the force of this argument from 


33 Th. M., III, 195. The Hom. and Past. Review (1.c.) gives the text of 
this decision in English: ‘‘May a material schismatic in danger of 
death and in good faith who asks for absolution and Extreme 
Unction be given these sacraments? Response: Not before he re- 
jects his errors as best he can, and makes a profession of faith.’’ 

34 Brevis Conspectus Mutat. Th. M., p 

35 Treatise on the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, p. 31. 

86 Th. M., II, 716. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 133 
and Repetition 


specific legislation. Consequently the arguments of many au- 
thors in regard to the administration of Penance to dying 
heretics can also be extended to Extreme Unction. The align- 
ment of authority is very impressive. 


Thus D’Annibale: 


‘‘Quod si nullum prorsus signum ediderit, morbo in instanti 
correptus, ut puta irruente apoplexi? Ergo ut opinor, si probabile 
sit non abhorrere, puta si rudis et b. f. homo sit, vel animum a 
eatholica religione non alienum ostendit, et huic dari potest, si quid 
opinor: ‘multo satius est nolenti dare, quam volenti negare, ubi 
velit an nolit sic non apparet.’ ’’37 


Kendrick is somewhat stricter than D’Annibale, for he allows 
absolution only to those who evidence a friendly mind toward 
the Church: 


‘‘Qui catholicam fidem nunquam professi sunt, sed voluntatem 
in eam proclivem ostenderunt, possunt eo in discrimine sub condi- 
cione absolvi censuris et peccatis, si in suis sectis fuerint jam bap- 
tizati; quod si ejus voluntatis nullum datum sit indicium, non sunt 
absolvendi, etiamsi dent signa doloris.’’38 


Telch® commemorates among the probable opinions the view 
which permits secret conditional absolution to heretics pre- 
sumably attrite and in good faith. 

Sabetti-Barrett?® allows schismatic dying in good faith to 
absolved, and admits the probability of the opinion permitting 
Penance to be given to material heretics who have passed into 
unconsciousness. Noldin*! and Genicot*? admit the liceity of 
absolving secretly and conditionally a heretic, still conscious but 


37 Summ. Th. M., III, 317. The quotation used by D’Annibale as the 
reason for his opinion is taken from St. Augustine (cf. tnfra, hoo 
capite, footnote 47). An examination of this quotation reveals that 
St. Augustine was speaking of a case somewhat different than the 
one contemplated by D’Annibale. St. Augustine considered the situ- 
ation where a catechumen was unable to manifest by words his 
desire for Baptism. And it can be seen that very great probability 
of the man’s desire to be baptized can be gleaned from the very 
fact of his entrance into the catechumenate. In the case treated 
by D’Annibale, no such presumption of the presence of intention is 
deducible from the circumstances, 

38 Th. M., III, De Paenitent., n. 212. 

39 Epit. Th. M., p. 413, n. 50. 

40 Comp. Th. M., p. 713. 

41 Dé Sac., n. 295. 

42 Inst. Th. M., II, 298. 


134 Extreme Unction 


dying, who cannot be conveniently advised about conversion to 
the Catholic faith—provided, of course, that he can prudently 
be considered only a material heretic living in good faith out- 
side the Church. Those destitute of their senses can likewise 
be absolved. In the former case Noldin tells the confessor to 
see that the man be moved to make acts of faith explicitly in 
the mysteries absolutely necessary and implicitly in the other 
articles of dogmatic truth. To these should be joined acts of 
trust and hope in the Divine benignity, and acts of charity and 
contrition whereby the subject admits that he is a sinner and 
asserts his willingness to do what Christ would command for 
salvation.43 

Tanquerey** thinks that it is not forbidden to absolve dying 
heretics who cannot be instructed in regard to the necessity of 
embracing the Catholic faith. Arregui#® agrees with this 
heartily and goes still further. He admits the lawfulness of 
absolving conditionally a formal and public heretic destitute of 
his senses, even though he did not retract his heresy when he 
was able to do so. Schieler-Heuser*® believes that ‘‘one might 
give absolution to a baptized non-Catholic of whom it might 
be presumed upon any probable grounds that he is bona fide 
and would gladly accept the help of a priest if he knew it was 
necessary for him.’’ 

Thus it is seen that many authoritative minds have held the 
licitness of giving Penance to dying heretics. And if Penance, 
why not the complement of Penance? It is true that when a 
heretic is in possession of his senses it is far more difficult to 
anoint him than to absolve him ‘‘clam et condicionate.’’? Yet 
it would not be unreasonable or outlandish to suppose that the 
priest could anoint the forehead or one of the senses with a 


438 The advice given by LaCroix (Th. M., 1. 6, p. II, n. 1866) and 
adopted by Reuter (Neo-Confessarius, n. 203) is quite impractical 
and very conducive to scandal in these days. They suggest that the 
priest change his garb and approach the sick man incognito. They 
hint that he may alter his dress to such an extent that the sick man 
may be left under the impression that he is a Protestant minister. 

44 Brev. Syn. Th. M., n. 1194. 

49 Summ. Th. M., n. 589. The probability of this teaching is admitted 
also by Ferreres (Th. M., II, 608) and Gennari (Il Monitore Ecclesi- 
astico, VI, p. 2, pag. 113); ef. also Murphy, Delinquencies and Pen- 
alties, pp. 5-8. 

46 The Theory and Practice of the Confessional, p. 652. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 135 
and Repetition 


single unction, while the bystanders would be left under the 
impression that it was a touch of sympathetic kindness. 

At any rate a priest who gives Extreme Unetion to dying 
heretics has enough of extrinsic probability on his side to save 
him from any scruples of conscience or criticism of his superiors. 
Again, a priest who does not anoint in these cases cannot be 
impugned for a lack of love towards souls. He has in support 
of his refusal arguments whose intrinsic worth are much greater 
than those which prompt the contrary mode of procedure. Such 
a priest may be firmly impressed by the arguments which make 
it absolutely wrong to administer the sacraments to these dying 
persons. 

The words of St. Augustine may be a help to the individual 
priest on this matter, enabling him to fashion his mode of rea- 
soning in concordance with one of the brightest lights in the 
intellectual history of the world: 

‘‘Catechumenis ergo in hujus vitae ultimo constitutis, si morbo 
seu casu aliquo sic oppressi sint, ut quamvis adhuc vivant, petero 
sibi tamen Baptismum vel ad interrogata respondere non possint; 
prosit eis quod eorum in fide christiana jam nota voluntas est, ut eo 
modo baptizentur, quo modo baptizantur infantes, quorum voluntas 
nulla adhuc patuit. Non tamen propterea damnare eos debemus qui 
timidius agunt, quam nobis videretur agi oportere. ... Sed non 
solum incredibile est, nec in fine vitae hujus baptizari catechumenum 
velle: verum etiam si voluntas ejus incerta est, multo satius est nolenti 
dare quam volenti negare, ubi velit an nolit sic non apparet, ut tamen 
credibilius sit eum, si posset, velle se potius dicturum ea Sacramenta 
percipere, sine quibus jam credidit non se oportere de corpore 
exire,’ 747 


2. 


Qui post adeptum usum rationis 


The second requirement for the valid reception of Extreme 
Unction is that the subject have attained the use of reason. This 
is clear from the Jacobean text: ‘‘Inducat presbyteros.’’ A man 
who never had the use of reason would be incapable of such an 
action. ‘‘Faire venir les prétes de l’église,’’ writes Bord,** 
‘Coux et non d’autres hommes, est l’action d’un adulte.’’ 


47 ‘De Conjug. Adult.,’’ lib. 1, ¢. 26, n. 33—M. P. L., 40, 469. 
48 T,’Extréme Onctton, p. 57. 


136 Extreme Unction 


Theologians have advanced many intrinsic reasons why 
children under the age of reason cannot receive Extreme Unc- 
tion yet can be participants of the sacramental graces of Con- 
firmation. Yet practically all of them can be attacked in very 
vital points. 

For example, Suarez *® asserts that the sacrament was insti- 
tuted because of the grief and the violent temptations of the 
hour of death, with the purpose of overcoming the weakness 
that springs from sin and of remitting such sin, if necessary. 
Of these an infant is wholly incapable, for it can neither be 
tempted nor resist temptation. Accordingly an infant is an 
invalid subject for Extreme Unction. 


However, it must be remembered that incapability of en- 
joying the consolation afforded by the sacrament is just as true 
in the case of those destitute of their senses as it is of infants. 
Yet the sacrament is never denied to the unconscious simply 
because of that reason. 

The argument advanced by Albertus Magnus® is quite 
as unsatisfactory. He claims that it would stultify the sacra- 
ment to pronounce the form ‘‘quidquid deliquisti’’ over those - 
who had nothing to delete. At most this would prove nothing 
else but the impropriety of the Western form for children. 
Suppose the Eastern form were employed—or one of the an- 
cient forms which said nothing of the forgiveness of sins? Fur- 
thermore the use of such a form should be just as futile in the 
case of those who have no sins to wipe out, such as adults just 
baptized, ete. 

St. Thomas advances a double argument against the cap- 
ability of children to receive Extreme Unction. In the first 
argument, he says that children are excluded because this sacra- 
ment, like the Eucharist, demands actual devotion in the reci- 
pient.°’ The basis of this demand for actual devotion is found 
in the article preceding: ‘‘Quod ad effectum hujus sacramenti 
percipiendum plurimum valet devotio suscipientis, et personale 
meritum conferentium et generale totius Ecclesiae: quod patet 
ex hoe quod per modum deprecationis forma hujus sacramenti 
SS 68, 64, 0b. 


50 Comm. in lib. IV Sent., dist. 23, n. 10, 
51 Suppl., q. 32, a. 4. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 137 
and Repetition 


confertur. Et ideo illis qui non possunt recognoscere et cum 
devotione suscipere hoc sacramentum, dari non debet.’? The 
vulnerability of this reasoning becomes apparent when it is 
remembered that the Church does not exclude from participa- 
tion in the sacrament those who are destitute of their senses 
and consequently incapable of actual devotion. Moreover the 
use of reason is by no means necessary for the valid reception 
of the Eucharist. In the early Church even infants were ad- 
mitted to the Divine Banquet. Hence the parity made with the 
sacrament of the Eucharist is void. 

The second argument of the Angelic Doctor is quite as 
fallacious as his first. The principal effect of Extreme Unction 
is, he says, the comforting and strengthening of the sick man 
against the debilities of fallen nature in so far as these debili- 
ties have been increased by personal sins.°? Since an infant 
has committed no actual sins, he is not laboring under that 
weakness of nature against which the sacrament is directed. 
Consequently he is not capable of the actual or habitual 
strengthening afforded by the sacrament; in other words, he 
cannot receive the principal effect of the sacrament. Qut est 
incapax principalis effectus, incapax est sacramenti. Therefore 
children are invalid subjects for Extreme Unction. 


Suarez ably answers this argument of St. Thomas: 


‘<Neque ex verbis Jacobi, neque ex aliquo Concilio, nec ex forma 
vel materia hujus sacramenti neque ex fine ejus colligi potest neces- 
sitas hujus sacramenti [i. e., debilitas naturae lapsae sit aucta per 
propria subjecti peccata]; et alioqui effectus primarius hujus sacra- 
menti optime locum habet in eo qui nunquam actualiter peceavit ; 
ergo et ipsum sacramentum.’’54 


The retort that the form would be rendered simpliciter 
false in a subject who had neither sin nor sin’s effects to expiate 
is of little worth. Infants are not excluded from admission to 
the sacrament because the form is not apt for them. On the 
contrary the Church has provided a form which does not apply 
to them because they are excluded. Moreover it would be nec- 


52 Suppl., q. 32, a. 3. 

58 Suppl., q. 32, a. 4 ad 2—This argument is also advanced by Barbosa, 
De Off. et Pot. Par., P. II, cap. xxii, n. 12. 

b4°D, 42,8. 2, n..8. 


138 Extreme Unction 


essary to extend such a contention to the case of saints who 
by special privilege or extraordinary penance had nothing to 
explate—neither sin nor its effects—at the time they fall into 
danger of death. Yet such people are valid subjects, even 
though the Latin form be employed. It retains its verity be- 
cause it expresses the power and efficacy which Unction has eX Se, 
and therefore it determines the matter sufficiently to accomplish 
the valid confection of the sacrament.®5 

Another reason advanced against the capability of infants 
to be anointed is that Extreme Unction is the complement of 
Penance, and consequently, those unable to receive Penance 
are excluded from its complement, Extreme Unction. Yet altho 
every one capable of Penance is per se capable of Unction 
(given the necessary conditions, as danger of death, ete.), the 
vice versa is not true. The argument is based on a wrong con- 
ception of what is required in order that one sacrament be the 
complement of another. What is necessary here is that Extreme 
Unction’s principal effect be of such a nature as to cause the 
deletion of the remains of sin, if such reliquiae have not been 
removed by Penance. It is certainly not required that the 
principal effect be essentially ordained against the effects of 
actual sin; it is quite sufficient that the removal of these effects 
follow from the state of soul that the primary effect produces. 
The principal effect of the sacrament is, of course, ‘‘roborare 
infirmum in eo articulo contra insidias diaboli,’’ 58 &e., 

Moreover an actual instance where a man is capable of 
Unction and not of Penance is that of a man just baptized. 
The common opinion holds that sins committed before Baptism 
are not matter for absolution. This instantia contraria destroys 
totally the validity of St. Thomas’ argumentation. 

Yet there must be some internal reason why this sacrament 
is not given to infants. Kern? seems to advance the best argu- 
ment in the matter. Each Sacrament, he tells us, is instituted 
principally for one effect, although others may follow there- 
from secondarily. In Extreme Unction this effect is the con- 
fortatio habitualis, the right to every help or aid which pro- 
55 Cf. Laymann, Th. M., 1. V, tr. 6, ¢. 3, in fine, where he teaches that in 

such cases ‘‘quidquid peceasti’’ is equivalent to ‘‘si quid peccasti.’’ 


56 D. 42, 5. 2, n. 8 
57 Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 311-2. 


Requisites in the Subject for Adminstration 139 
and Repetition 


motes alleviation of the soul. Now it needs no proof that an 
infant is altogether incapable of enjoying actual comforting of 
soul (confortatio actualis) against the debilities caused therein 
by sin. However, it remains to be shown that he is also incom- 
petent to receive the habitual comfort given by the sacrament. 


There is a repugnance in the very concept of giving a 
right which can never be used because of the want of sufficient 
time to come into such a position where it may be used. Kern 
gives an example of a prince who conceded to a pauper the 
right to enjoy for the following day the comforts of a palace 
three days’ journey away. Sucha right is misnamed. Similarly 
it would be the lot of an infant to attain to benefits which would 
be of value only for the time of sickness. While sick, he could 
make no use of it, for he is incapable of actual spiritual alle- 
viation. He is neither tempted nor depressed. If he recovers 
and reaches reason’s age, his title to the supernatural aids 
will have vanished, for the duration of these rights 1s co-exten- 
sive only with the period of danger of death. As a consequence, 
infants become, by their utter incompetency, either active or 
passive, of receiving alleviation, absolutely invalid subjects of 
Unction. 

This also sheds illumination why those not having reason 
can validly participate in Confirmation and yet cannot receive 
Extreme Unction. The former gives a right, sealed by a char- 
acter upon the soul, to aids against the dangers of faith. At 
the time of reception the infant has no actual need of such 
graces, but he does receive a passive potency, which will be 
translated into act as he ‘‘advances in age and wisdom and 
grace before God and men.’’ As he matures, he becomes more 
and more capable of actual reception of the aids flowing from 
a right once held only passively. Thus an infant can validly 
receive Confirmation, for normally the right to graces bestowed 
by the sacrament realizes its object in later life. Should death 
call him while still an infant, such an event would be thoroughly 
accidental. And quite as accidental would be the phenomenon 
of an infant reaching the age of reason during the time of 
sickness. The sacraments were not instituted for such rare 
and absolutely extraordinary cases. Accordingly for one and 


140 Extreme Unction 


the same reason a child is an apt subject for Confirmation, even 
though he may die before the age of reason, and is completely 
incapable of Extreme Unction, even though it is foreseen that 
his sickness will perdure until he attains the use of reason. 

The exact age required for the subject of Extreme Unction 
has been the matter of much local legislation in the past. Most 
authorities placed the age for valid reception at a much higher 
one than the age of reason. Perhaps it was the age of puberty 
that first influenced earlier theologians to set this later date for 
valid reception. Some went further than this. 

Odo, the bishop of Paris in the twelfth century, inserted in 
his Synodal Constitutions the following enactment: 


‘Ad sacramentum Extremae Unctionis moneant populum sacer- 
dotes, non tantum divites et senes, sed pauperes et juvenes omnes, 
a tempore discretionis, maxime a quattuordecim annis et supra ut se 
paratos exhibeant cum necesse fuerit.’’58 


The same advanced age was decreed by Galon and Simon,®? the 

papal legates to France under Popes Innocent III and Honorius 

IIT; by the Constitutions of Richard Poore, bishop of Sarum 

in England ;* by the Constitutiones Synodales Episcopi Ano- 

nymi,°' edited in 1237; by the Statutes of Peter di Collomedio,® 

archbishop of Rouen; and by an ancient Ritual of the Canons 

Regular of the Monastery of Aqua-Viva in the diocese of Tours.®3 
Durandus states in his Rationale Divinorum Officiorum *4 

that the subject must have attained the age of eighteen years. 

This was mentioned also in a verse of an anonymous poem ¢con- 

tained in the Codex of St. Martin of Tours: ‘‘Qcto decemque 

tantum annos ungendus habebit.’’®> This age was also pre- 

scribed by Frederick Nausea in his famous Catechism .°¢ _The 

Synod of Bayeux,®? held at the beginning of the fourteenth 

58 Cap. 8, n. 2—Harduin VI, pars 2, 1941. 

59 Apud Martene, De Antig. Ecc. Rit., lib. 1, ¢. 7, a. 1, n. 3; Catalano, 
Kit. Rom., t. I, p. 310, ad paragr. V, n. IIT. 

60 Harduin, VII, 107. 

61 Harduin, VII, 303. 

62 Martene, l.c. ; Catalano, lc. 

63 Martene, 1.c. ; Catalano, lc. 

64 Lib. I, c. 8, n. 25. 

65 Martene, lc. 


66 Lib. 3, cap. 107—quoted by Martene, l.c.; Catalano, l.c. and Benedict 
XIV, De Syn. Dioc., 1. 3, 606, 11,2, 
67 Cap, 74—Harduin VII, 1237. 


Requisites in the Subject for Admimstration 141 
and Repetition 


century, reduced the age to fourteen, thus agreeing with the 
legislation of Odo. 


Local rituals of the sixteenth century evidence the defer- 
ment of the Unction until the subject was fourteen years old. 
A rubric to this effect ean be found in the Manuals of Chartres 
(1489 & 1544 & 1604), Rheims (1504 & 1530), Périgueux (1509), 
Clermont (1518 & 1525), St. Flour (1525), Chalons sur Marne 
(1529 & 1569), Nivernum (1533), Beauvais (1544), Meaux 
(1546), Verdun (1554), Limoges (1555), Arras (1563), Vienne 
(1577) and Maguelone (1583).*8 


Yet such a practice of delaying the unction until puberty 
was not universal. The Statutes of Cahors, Rodez and Tulle 
demanded only the age of reason.®® Similar synodal decrees 
were made for Paris” in 1557 and for the province of Cam- 
brai™ in 1586. Valens Guellius, the bishop of Orleans, declared 
in the diocesan Statutes the ineligibility of those who had not 
yet communicated to participate in the reception of Extreme 
Unction.’2 With far more reasonableness the Pastoral of Mech- 
lin?? admitted to reception all those capable of committing 
mortal sin. Cardinal de Rohan, in the Ritual of Strasburg, 
prescribed: ‘‘Non denegetur etiam pueris si septimum atti- 
gerint annum, nec iis in quibus malitia supplet aetatem, etiams1 
septenarii non sunt.’’74 


Although the tendency of the age was to postpone the 
administration of Unction, nevertheless two authors claimed 
that it used to be imparted even to those who had not the use 
of reason, viz., Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa’ and Juan Maldo- 


68 Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, pp. 562-3. 

69 Martene-Durand, Anecdoctor., tom. IV, cap. 17—cf. Benedict XIV, 
De Syn. Dioc., |. 8, c. 6, n. 2. 

70 Cf. Martene, De Antiqg. Ecc. Rit., 1. I, ¢. 7, a. 1, n. 3. 

71 Harduin IX, 2164. 

72 Cf. Martene, l.c.; Benedict XIV, l.c. This view was also embraced by 
Dominic Soto (Comm. in IV Sent., dist., 23, q. 2, a. 2). Cf. also 
Conc. Mexicanum (anno 1589), lib. I, tit. VI, paragr. 6—Harduin X, 


1610. 
73 Van Espen, Jus Eccl. Univ., P. II, sec. I, tit. 8, c. 2, n. 9. 
74 Rituale Argentinense, ‘‘Tit. de Ext. Unct.,’’ paragr. 2, p. 174— 


quoted by Benedict XIV, l.c. 
75 Hpistola Tertia ad Bohemos. 


142 Extreme Unction 


nado.’® Cornelius a Lapide’? denounces this statement as 
groundless. 


Since the Council of Trent, most theologians have held it is 
eminently sufficient for validity if the child has attained the 
age of reason.‘® Later Councils have similarly been very liberal, 
and insist that the child is capable of Extreme Unction, even 
though he has not received the Eucharist—provided that he 
be capable of sin.?9 The deferring of Extreme Unction to any 
later age was denounced in no uncertain terms by Pius X: 
‘‘Detestabilis omnino est abusus non ministrandi Extremam 
Unctionem pueris post usum rationis.®°’’ 


The new Code demands only the use of reason. The sub- 
ject must be at least ‘‘culpae capax,®!’’ even though he has never 
actually transgressed the law. He is, if he have reason, subject 
to temptations, and is in need of the comfort and solace that 
such a sacrament brings. Boys who have developed enough 
to be capable of the least venial sin are to be anointed. No 
appointed age can be given, for in each ease special investiga- 
tion is to be made into the development of the moral sense in 
the subject. Vicar Lebherz, writing in the Casuzst®? holds that 
children may receive Extreme Unction even before the sixth 
year. Benedict XIV® said it was to be given to boys ‘‘qui 
censentur capaces Sacramenti Poenitentiae, quamvis nondum 
tanta polleant judicii maturitate ut videantur apti ad rite par- 
ticipandam Eucharistiam, de cujus ineffabili excellentia et sanc- 
titate non ita facile edoceri queunt.’’ 


If it is certain that the child has not yet reached the use of 
reason, the sacrament cannot be administered. With children 


76 Disp. §c., Circa Sept. Sacramenta, t. II, de Extr. Unct., col. 389. 

77 Comm. in Ep. S. Jacobi, ad V, 14. 

78 Cf. e.g., Suarez, d. 42, s. 2, n. 8; 8. Alph., Th. M., VI, 720. 

79 Cf. Conc. V Mediolanen. apud Acta Ecc. Mediolanen., t. I, p. I, p. 230; 
Proy. Councils of Cassel (1853—Coll. Lac., III, 838); Quebee (1854 
—ibid., p. 645); Rheims (1849—ibid., IV, 122); Bordeaux (1850— 
ibid., IV, 574); Kansas City, Mo. (1912—c. 13, n. 126); Rochester 
(1914—tit. X, ¢. 6, n. 341); Oklahoma (1913—n. 136); &c. 

80 S. C. de Sac., ‘Quam Singulari,’’? 8 Aug. 1910—A. A. 8., II, 583. 

81 Matharan et Castillon, Asserta Moralia, paragr. 521, p. 237; Aureli, 
De Extr. Unct., n. 15, p. 90. 

82 Vol. II, p. 173-6. 

83 De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, ¢. 6, n. 2. 

84 Cat. Conc. Trid., De Extr. Unct., n. 9. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 143 
and Repetition 


are classed those afflicted with permanent insanity. In such 
people there has been no evolution of the spiritual or moral 
life—and accordingly they experience none of the spiritual pros- 
tration which occurs in the hour of death to those who have 
knowledge of good and of evil. They are consequently incap- 
able of the principal effect of the sacrament.® 


It is by no means necessary that a man be ‘‘sui compos’’ 
at the time of the conferring of the sacrament. Those who have 
been rendered unconscious by the ravages of the disease®® or 
those who have lapsed into insanity after the attainment of the 
use of reason®’ are capable of receiving this anointing. They 
have the potency of habitual confortatio at least, and this is quite 
sufficient to make a man a valid subject of the Unction. 


Any one who has ever had a lucid interval during his 
life can validly be anointed. This was declared as anciently 
as the Council of Orange®® and was clearly expounded by 
Navarrhus: 


‘‘Cuilibet tamen hujusmodi infirmo est ministrandum, etiamsi 
sit amens et phreneticus, si absque irreverentia sacramenti, id fieri 
possit, et potuerit ante peccare, et antequam insaniret, expresse aut 
tacite petierit illud, aut si meminisset, petiturus fuisset, nec in 
peccato mortali notorio insaniret.’’89 


85 It might be objected that the insane, though incapable of some effects, 
have at least the capacity to receive corporal sanation, and therefore 
are capable of receiving the sacrament. However ‘‘qui incapax est 
principalis effectus, incapax est sacramenti.’’ Sacraments were insti- 
tuted for supernatural ends, and not for natural purposes. If an 
effect does occur in the order of nature, it must be considered as an 
appendage, never as the principal effect. Cf. Trombellio, Tract. de 
Sac. Ext. Unct., Vol. III, diss. X, n. X; Coninck, De Sac. et Censur., 
disp. 19, dub. VII. 

86 Cf. can. 943. 


87 Cf, Trombellio, Tract. de Sac. Ext. Unct., Vol. III, diss. X, paragr. VI, 
p. 26; Mastrio, Th. M., disp. XXII, qu. 5, a. 1, nn. 70-71; Diana, 
Op. Coord., tom. II, tr. IV, res. 50; Barbosa, De Off. et Pot. Par., 
¢. 22, n. 13; Tamburini, Moral. Ezplic., ‘‘de Ext. Unct.,’’ ¢. 2, 
paragr. 3, n. 4; Benedict XIV, De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, c. 6, n. 4; Suarez, 
d. 42, 8. 1, nn. 5-6, 

88 Harduin I, 1785—can. 13. 


89 Manuale, c. 22, n. 13. Cf. infra, chap. vii, p. 240, where the lawfulness 
of anointing a man who fell into insanity in the act of sin is treated. 
Cf. 8. Thom., Comm. in IV Sent., d. 23, q. 2, a. 2, quaestiunc. 3. 


144 Extreme Unction 


Similarly those who are delirious, or unconscious, or in convul- 
sions, or otherwise deprived of their senses may be validly and 
licitly anointed.2° Lehmkuhl sums this up briefly: 
‘‘Deneganda non est 1) amentibus et delirantibus qui unquam 
antea rationis usum habuerint; 2) pueris modo rationis usum atti- 
gerint, quamquam antea neque confessi sunt neque S. Eucharistia 
donati.’ 791 


As stated before, the subject must be at least capable of 
sin. Whether it is necessary that he actually have committed 
sin is very much disputed. St. Thomas*? holds that the prin- 
cipal effect presupposes the existence of a spiritual infirmity 
resulting from actual sin committed before or after baptism. 
Suarez,?? on the contrary, maintains that it is quite sufficient to 
have the capability of actual sin and to possess the spiritual in- 
firmity resulting from original sin. He is supported in his con- 
tention by Dionysius the Carthusian,** and St. Bonaventure.® 


Suarez goes even further and holds that one by nature liable 
to contract original sin, yet by a special privilege exempt from 
it, can still receive the primary effect of the sacrament; and 
consequently is a valid subject of the Unction.®°* His opinion is 
subscribed to by St. Antoninus,®? by Canisius 98 and by Hen- 
riquez,” at least in regard to the case of the Blessed Virgin. 
They base their contention upon the argument that she had the 
antecedent potency of sinning, even though this potency had 
never been deduced into act, because of her singular privileges. 


The opposite opinion is taught by Victoria,!°° Vasqueth 1 
and Tanner *°*—because, as Tanner remarks, the privilege be- 
stowed on Mary was not capriciously done, but arose from a 
certain congruity and special excellence connected with the 


90 Tanquerey, Th. D., III, 782. 

21 Th. M., IU, 723. 

92 Suppl. q. 32, a. 4 ad 2. 

93 D. 42, s. 1, n. 5. 

94 Summa Fidei, lib. 5, ¢. 149 in fine. 

95 Comm. in IV Sent., d. 23, p. 2, a. 1, q. 2. 
96.D. 42, sect, 1; n 5. 

97 In III p. d. Thom., tit. XIV, ce. 8 et 13. 
98 Lib. de Beata Virg., ec. 9. 

99. De Sac., lib. TIL, ¢. 11, n. 7. 

100 Swmma Sac., De Ext. Unct., n. 222. 

101 In III p. d. Thom., disp. 119, e. 8. 

102 tom. IV, disp. 7, a. 1, dub. 3. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 145 
and Repetition 


prerogative of the Divine Maternity. Accordingly, they say, 
she was in no way capable of the spiritual comfort produced by 
the sacrament. 

A practical case will occur when a priest is confronted with 
the case of a child who has reached the age of reason and whom 
he knows from confession never to have sinned. In this situa- 
tion St. Alphonsus 1° and Diana? decide that the sacrament 
should be bestowed. Two reasons would prompt this course of 
action: (1) the very great likelihood that the commission of 
actual sin is not essential for valid reception; and (2) the seal 
of confession, which comes into consideration at least remotely 
and indirectly in such circumstances. 


It is certainly permitted to anoint an adult immediately 
after the bestowal of Baptism. This is abundantly clear from 
the decisions of the Roman Congregations1®> and from the 
teaching of theologians.1°* Laymann calls attention to the fact 
that the form in such eases has a conditional sense ‘‘si quid 
peccasti.’’ 


3. “Ob infirmitatem vel senium in periculo mortis versetur.”’ 


It has been shown in the first chapter that the Scriptural 
text speaks of those only who are seriously sick. The force of 
the Greek words acbevet and xdpvovra, especially when con- 
sidered in their setting in that text, refer explicitly to a sub- 
ject in a dangerous state of illness. 

In the course of centuries abuses and malpractices in this 
regard have crept into the Greek and the Latin rites. Both 
(and also the Greek schismatic or Orthodox Church) profess the 
sacramental dignity of the Unction; both concur in the ques- 
tion of its matter and form, its effects and its minister. But 


103 Th. M., VI, 717. 

104 Opera Coord., t. II, tr. IV, res. 42. 

105 §, C. S. Off., 10 Maii, 1703, ad 8—Collectanea, n. 256; 10 Apr. 1861, 
ad. 1—Collectanea, n. 1213; 8. C. P. F., 26 Sept. 1821—Collectanea, 
n. 768. 

106 Diana, Op. Coord., t. II, tr. IV, res. 47; Laymann, Th. M., lib."V, tr. 8, 
ce. III in fine; 8S. Alph., Th. M., VI, 721; Kenrick, Th. M., ITI, De 
Ext. Unct., cap. unic., n. 18; Lehmkunl, Th. M., II, 722; Sabetti- 
Barrett, Th. M., p. 805; Genicot, Casus Conse., cas. 884. 


146 Extreme Unction 


in regard to the subject of the sacrament, theological history 
resounds with the vituperations of the West against the East 
and re-echoes with the arraignment of the Orient by the Occident. 


Latin writers clamor that the Greeks confer, in direct con- 
tradiction to the Apostolic mandate, the Euchelaion on those 
but slightly ill or even perfectly well. Thus Arcudius wrote: 


‘*Ego praesentem morem Graecorum qui poenitentes, quamvis bene 
valentes, in omnibus iis corporis partibus adhibita quoque forma 
éacramenti non aliter atque infirmos inungunt, nulla ratione probare 
possum; et si sordidi quaestus gratia id faciunt ... eo magis de- 
testandus est. Cum enim subjectum non sit aptum ad recipiendum 
sacramentum—quando neque graviter quis infirmatur, et ad mortem, 
ut requirit Apostolus et exponunt sacri doctores—frustra temereque 
Ulud Graeci administrant.’’107 


And again: 


‘‘Adeo ut modo non pudeat passim Graecorum presbyteros hoe 
oleum instar sacramenti ex imperitia benevalentibus administrare, ’ 7108 


Similar denunciations of the practice are found in the writings 
of Theophilus Raynaudus 1% and Tournely.1!° 

Other writers, such as Hieremias,!!! Allatius 112 and 
Fortescue,1"* testify to the existence of this custom. It was by 
no means local; as Arcudius puts it, ‘‘viget non in aliquo angulo 
Graeciae sed ubique passim, quam eandem retinet hae nostra 
aetate tota Russia universaque Moscovia.’’1!4 


Goar admits this usage but contends vigorously that it is 
regarded as a sacramental. ‘‘Contingit tamen, fateor, aliquando 
ex officio peracto, ex astantibus plerique, vel benedictionis spi- 
ritualis obtinendae, vel levis alicujus doloris eos afflictantis 
leniendi gratia, Unctionis medela se curari exoptent; quod 
praestant sacerdotes eadem ratione ac super aegros recitata.’’115 
This admission is followed by arguments in proof of his con- 





107 De Concord. Eccl. Occid., 1. V, ¢. 4. 

108 De Concord. Eccl. Occid., 1. V, cap. ult. 

109 Heteroclita Spiritualia, t. XVI, p. 164. 

110 Praelectiones Theol. de Sept. Sac., ‘‘De Ext. Unet.,’* qo°3; 

111 Censura adv. Augustanam Lutheranorwm Confessionem, 1]. 1, PAD aig 

112 De Consens. Eccl. Occid. et Orient., 1. III, cap. 16. ets: 

113 The Orthodox Eastern Church, p. 425. 

114 L. ¢., cap. 4, 

115 Fuchologium, p. 349-50, Pignatelli (Consult. Canon., t. VIII, consult. 
84, n. 29) thinks this is a sacramental. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 147 
and Repetition 


tention. There is no intention of confecting the sacrament; the 
ceremonial which accompanies the bestowal of the Euchelaion is 
absent ; and the form or prayer used in the Greek rite is so com- 
prehensive that it can be used on this occasion without doing 
violence to the meaning. The arguments of Goar are sup- 
ported by the fact that the Greeks used the oil of the sick for 
many other purposes than to confer Extreme Unction.!!® 

Yet Kern'!? is not impressed by this reasoning, although 
he admits the great authority of Goar. Drouven*!® protests that 
we are too harsh in our judgment of the Greeks. Perhaps he 
is right, for today the oriental theologians confess that the ad- 
ministration of Unction to healthy people was certainly an 
abuse.119 

In the schismatie Church this practice of anointing those 
not sick exists even today. It enjoys wide diffusion in the 
patriarchate of Constantinople, and indeed in the whole Hellenic 
kingdom.?*° In the Russian Church, on the contrary, there is 
found a firm persuasion that the Euchelaion must be reserved 
for those alone who are seriously sick.!21 


It was also not uncommon in days past that the reception 
of Extreme Unction be enjoined upon a penitent as sacramental 
satisfaction for his sins. Evidently this was due to a mistaken 
idea of the sense in which Extreme Unction is the complement 
of Penance. Thus Areudius!** tells of a reply of John Natha- 
niel, the great Oeconomus of Crete, to Vivian, bishop of Anagni, 
wherein it is stated that such was made the source of a great 
revenue for priests thru the charging of a fee for such unc- 


116 Mabillonius, Praef. ad Saec. Primum, Act. SS. Ord. 8. Benedict, 
paragr. 9, n. 101. 

117 Tract. de Ext..Unct., p. 279. 

seneven he Sacr., 1. VII, q. 5, ¢..1, paragr.. 1. 

119 Cf, Arcangelsky, Mihail, ‘‘Izsledovanije ob istoriceskom razvitii cinos- 
oversenija Jeleosvjascenija ot ustanovlenija sego tainstva do izdanija 
nynesnjago jego ‘‘Posledovanija,’’ s podrobnym izjasnenijem sego 
poslednjago,’’ p. 133 sqq. 

120 Cf. Ralli, Tleopt ray wvotnpiwy, p. 115; Mesaloras, ‘Eyxecpldcov, 
p. 218; Catechism of Constantinople and 
Athens—‘‘ Echos de 1]’Orient,’’ avril-mai, 1899. 

121 [gnatius, ‘‘O tainstvah jedinoj, svjatoj, sobornoj i apostolskoj cerkvi. 
Opyt arheologiceskij,’’ p. 265; Maltzew, Die Sakramente, p. 451 
Makarij, ‘‘Pravoslavno-dogmaticeskoje bogoslovije,’’ t. V p. 470. 

122 De Concord. Eccl. Orient., 1. V, ¢. 4. 


148 Extreme Unction 


tions. This abominable business Innocent IV!" and Benedict 
XIV!*4 endeavored to extirpate by determined legislation. 


Even in the Latin Church, which is generally accused of 
delaying the administration too long, there are found isolated 
examples of the bestowal of this sacrament to subjects in good 
health. For example, Hugh of Flaviade, in the Chronicles of 
Verdun,?** tells of one Odilia who received a divine forewarn- 
ing that she was to die the following day. Immediately she 
went to the monastery of St. Vito, where she was anointed by 
the abbot, Richard. There is also the story of the monk who 
after Matins on St. Martin’s day was supernally advised of his 
approaching dissolution. He revealed his vision to the abbot, 
and by his permission was anointed with holy oil. ‘‘Et Domi- 
nicis munitus mysteriis, sanus et incolumis, cum eaeteris in 
conventu versatus, sequento die obiit.’’!*6 


Similar examples are found in the Life of St. Gildasius,!*7 
where the anointment of a lay-brother, while well, is mentioned: 
and in the Life of St. Hedwig, who was anointed before she 
became sick.18 

These isolated examples, Benedict XIV!" contends, are not 
contrary to the practice and teaching of the Church. They are 
extraordinary doings, the dealings of God with His saints. As 
the author of St. Hedwig’s life says: ‘‘Hoe tamen, quod heic 
diximus, admirandum potius est quam imitandum, cui Spiritui 
Domini per revelationem tribuit efficaciam, et in quo, ut pie 
ereditur, sancta devotio dispensavit.’’ Thiers!®® asserts that 
such people, when divinely forewarned of death, are valid recip- 
lents because they have already been stricken internally by a 
mortal disease. 


123 Ep. ‘‘Sub catholicae,’’ 6 Maii, 1254—paragraph 3, n. 6—C. I. CG. 
Fontes, n. 34. 

124 Const. ‘‘Htst patoralis,’’ 26 Maii, 1742, paragr. V, n. 1—C. I. C. 
Fontes, n. 328; ep. encyl. ‘‘EHx quo,’’ 1 Mar., 1756, paragr. 48— 
C. I. C. Fontes, n. 438. 

125 p. 167—quoted by Martene, De Antig. Ecc. Rit., 1. I, c. 7, a. 1, n. 1 and 
by Benedict XIV, De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, c. 5, n. 2. 

126 Mabillonius, Acta SS. Ord. Benedicti, saec. VI, p. 2. 

127 Mabillonius, l.c., saec. 1, p. 151. 

128 Cap. 8—Acta SS., Oct. 17, vol. 8, p. 219. 

129 Le. 

130 De Superstitione circa Sac. Ext. Unct., 1. 8, c. 6, p. 377: cf. Benedict 
Z1V; De Syni Dice, 128, ehh, 8 ay ee ape 


Requisites in the Subject for Adminstration 149 
and Repetition 


While Goar and other Greek writers endeavor to explain 
the Greek practice of anointing those not seriously ill as an 
abuse or aS a sacramental, in the Latin Church two theo- 
logians, De Sainte-Beuve 1*1 and Juenin 182 stoutly defend the 
validity of anointing those but slightly ill. They have three 
principal arguments for their view. 


In the first place, they say, Scripture orders the unction of 
the sick, but it does not exclude the healthy. Much less does 
it proseribe an unction for those but slightly ill. These latter 
people can be said in truth to be sick. Moreover, Eugene IV, 
in his decree to the Armenians,!** used the phrase “‘dari non 
debet nisi infirmo, de cujus morte timetur.’’ He did not say 
‘(dari non potest.’? Moreover ‘‘de cujus mortis timetur’’ can be 
extended to include such sicknesses which may be only very 
slightly dangerous and thus cause a cursory fear of the ulti- 
mate outcome. Again the Council of Trent*** directed that 
the sacrament was to be given to the sick, especially to those 
who were so seriously ill as to be near the end of their earthly 
journey. The insertion of ‘‘praesertim’’ evidences the Coun- 
cil’s unwillingness to exclude those not so sick as to be in 
danger of death.1%° 


Secondly, theologians all maintain that necessary elements 
for the valid administration of a sacrament are matter, form 
and intention. Yet these are present even when the subject is 
well, or but slightly ill. 

Finally, although the Greeks were compelled to render a 
strict account of all their doings which varied from the Latin 
Rite, in the Ecumenical Council of Florence, yet no objection 
was raised to the Greek practice of anointing those not seriously 
ill. The Council did take note of the practice of ordering 


131 De Eat. Unct., disp. 7, a. 1-2; apud Migne, Curs. Theol. Comp., vol. 
XXIV, 116-122. 

132 Comm. Hist. et Dog. de Sac., diss. 7, q. 7, ¢ 3. 

133 Const. ‘‘Ezultate Deo’’ (in Cone. Florentin.), 22 Nov. 14389, paragr. 14 
—C. I. C. Fontes, n. 52. 

134 Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct., cap. 3. 

135 Coninck (De Sac. et Censur., d. 19, dub. 8 in fine) is impressed by the 
phraseology of the Council, but uses it to prove only the validity of 
the sacrament in a putative danger of death. He seems consequently 
to be of the opinion that ‘‘debere’’ signifies only a necessity of 
precept. 


150 Extreme Unction 


unction as sacramental satisfaction, and it condemned the prac- 
tice. This is a fair indication that the custom of anointing 
those not in danger of death did not escape the vigilance of the 
Council; and a lack of condemnation signifies approval. 

Benedict XIV'%® calls this reasoning frivolous. In regard 
to the first argument, the real force of the Apostolic text has 
already been discussed. The strength of ‘‘dari non debet’’ 
could be per se preceptive, it must be admitted. Yet it can 
similarly be taken to signify an absolute necessity, as Bar- 
bosa!*? notes, and in dogmatic decrees it means a necessity not 
only of precept but of sacrament, as Suarez observes.188 Pope 
Eugene and the Council of Trent intended to proclaim the 
whole dogma in regard to Extreme Unction, as the latter pro- 
tested in the end of the third chapter on Extreme Unction. 
When, therefore, they said it was to be given to the sick, they 
meant the sick tazative. 

In answer to the second argument, it is only necessary to 
remark that it is quite as essential to have a subjectum capax 
as to have the other necessary constituents of the sacrament. 
If this were not so, Order could be validly received by women. 
As Suarez '*? puts it, the subject is the ‘‘materia in qua’’ or 
“circa quam’’ of the sacrament—which ‘‘ad totum sacramen- 
tum comparatur et ab ulo sacramentum in suo esse pendet, 
ideoque merito inter ejus causas computatur.’’ Hence unless 
they assume what they intend to prove, viz., that people slightly 
ill are valid subjects, their argument has no foree whatsoever. 
And if they do assume this, they fall into a ‘‘petitio principii.’’ 

The final argument from the action of the Council of 
Florence would be valid if its proponents would show that 
the Council looked upon the Greek ceremony as a sacrament. 
It is Just as logical to conclude that the Fathers of the Council 
regarded it as a sacramental. 

While the Eastern theologians debated about the customs 
of the Greeks, Oriental writers denounced in no uncertain terms 
the practice of the Latins of postponing the administration of 


136 De Syn. Déioc., 1. 8, c. 5, n. 5. 

137 Barbosa, De Usu Frequent., dist. 77, n. 1. 
183 42, 8.08, De 2 

189 D. 42, in principio. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration al 
and Repetition 


this sacrament until all hope of recovery had passed away.!?° 
In very many cases this vehemence was deserved, for it is 
beyond doubt that such a lamentable practice gripped the Latin 
Chureh for several centuries. 

Three principal causes must be mentioned to account for 
the existence of this abuse in the Latin Church. They are 
1) the impious avarice of many priests of the Middle Ages; 
2) the insane superstitions of the people; and 3) the errors of 
theologians. 

1. It must be admitted that the sacrilegious greed of some 
priests of the Middle Ages forced many to forego the 
advantages of this glorious sacrament. Extreme Unction was 
not given ‘‘sine pretio,’’ and was available therefore only to 
the rich. For this reason the Waldensians were led to spurn 
the sacrament. Reynerius, a Dominican of the thirteenth cen- 
tury, states: 


‘‘Sacramentum Unctionis reprobant quia tantum divitibus datur, 
et propter plures sacerdotes ibi necessarios. . . . Sacramentum 
Extremae Unctionis dicunt esse ultimam superbiam. Contra Jacobi 
ultimo: ‘Infirmatur quis in vobis.’ Occasio quia hoe sacramentum 
nulli datur sine pretio. Et hoc facit pluralitas sacerdotum.. . 
Item praedicant quidam nulli sacramentum hoe debere dari, nisi qui 
possit habere saltem duas vaccas. Unde pauperes graviter scanda- 
lizantur. Item dicunt quod duodecim lumina sunt necessaria in 
unctione, cum tamen sufficiat unicum ubi corpus Christi ministratur, 
quia est dignissimum sacramentum; ita et hic.’’141 


The enormity of the stipend demanded was decried very 
bitterly by Anonymus Passaviensis!#* and by Wiliam Major, 
the Bishop of Angers in the last part of the thirteenth century. 


140 Symeon Thessalonicen., De Sacro Ritu Sancts Olet,—M. P. L., 155, 
518-9; Ignatij, O tainstvah jedinoj, svjatoj, sobornoj i apostolskoj 
eerkyi,’’ p. 279; Beljaev, ‘‘Jeleosvjascenije’’ v ‘‘Pravoslavnoj 
Bogoslovskoj enciklopediji,’’ t. V, p. 406; Makarij, ‘‘ Pravoslavno- 
dogmaticeskoje bogoslovije,’’ t. V, n. 231, etc., among schismatie 
writers. See Mesaloras, Eyxerptdiov p. 219, for disapproval by 

a Greek writer. 

141 Lib. de Waldensibus, edited in 1254, quoted by De Sainte-Beuve, De 
Ext. Unct., disp. 1, a. 2, apud Migne, Curs. Theol. Comp., t. XXIV, 
Colne L. 

142 De Occasionibus Errorum Haereticorum, edited in 1260. Cf. Preger, 
Beitrage zur Geschichte der Waldenser im Mittelalter, p. 66. 


152 Extreme Unction 


In his synod of 1294, the latter legislated: 

‘‘Nosque accepimus referentibus fide dignis, quod dictum sacra- 
mentum, sine quo, ut dicunt sancti, periculosum est ex hac vita 
migrare, ex quadam negligentia omittitur, #mmo ut vervus loquamur, 
ex sacerdotum rapacitate et avarttia, qui in collatione hujus sacra- 
menti novas et insolitas exactiones inducunt aliunde, petendo lintea- 
mina, quibus jacens inungitur aegrotans.’ 7143 
Synodal legislation of these centuries reveals a determined 

attempt on the part of the hierarchy to extirpate this abomin- 
able abuse. Thus for instance, Richard Poore, the bishop of 
Sarum, inserted in his Constitutions the following enactment: 
‘<Praecipimus,quod ad Sacramentum Extremae Unctionis mo- 
neant frequenter populum sacerdotes, in necessitate videlicet: et non 
tantum divites, sed pauperes, senes et juvenes omnes, maxime & 
quattuor decim annis et supra. Et omnibus petentibus et poenitenti- 
bus gratis exhibeant hoc sacramentum in necessitate, cum fuerint 
humiliter requisiti.’’144 
Similar decrees are found in the prescriptions of the synods of 
Paris,!45 Bayeux,!46 Exeter 147 and Valencia,!*8 all of which were 
celebrated in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The Council 
of Angers 14° ordered the conferring of the sacrament to be post- 
poned until shortly before death because of this avarice. The 
synodal statutes of Rheims and Troyes, enacted in the beginning 
of the fifteenth century, forbade a priest to demand a fee prior to 
the unction, but allowed him to take a subsequent offering.° The 
Synod of Sens in 1524 warned priests to anoint the rich and 
the poor alike; while the Council of Mainz denounced in burn- 
ing words the execrable greed of some priests of that day.’ 
Benedict XIV}? assigns this clerical cupidity as the reason for 
the reduction of the ministers in the Latin Church from seven 
to one. 

From the above sorrowful experience, it can be seen what 
irreparable harm the greed for gold can cause in the Church 


143 Cf. Martene, De Antig. Rit. Eccl., 1. 1, ¢. 7, a. 2, n. 10. 

144 Harduin VII, 107. 

145 Harduin VI, p. 2, 1941. 

146 Harduin VII, 1237 (anno 1300). 

147 anno 1287—Harduin VII, 1081. 

148 anno 1255, Harduin VII, 1979. 

149 anno 1293—Cf. De Sainte-Beuve, De Hat. Unct., d. VI, a. 3 apud 
Migne, Curs. Theol. Comp., vol. XXIV, col. 115. 

150 Cf. De Sainte-Beuve, l.c. 

151 Harduin IX, 2136. 

152 De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, c. 4, n. 6. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 153 
and Repetition 


of God. The Divine Master carried not a copper with him, 
but had to resort to a miracle to procure a coin for the offering 
in the temple. Silver and gold Peter had not, but he was able 
to cure the beggar at the gate called Speciosa. Priests should 
take a salutary lesson from this. They should be spurred to a 
firm resolution never to seek a remuneration upon the occasion 
of the administration of the last sacraments. They should even 
be chary of taking voluntary offerings. Such acceptance often 
becomes an obstacle to the poor who feel that the priest will 
expect something for his visit to the sick. Customs already 
existing should be eradicated without compunction. Moreover, 
priests should not be deceived by the specious excuses of the 
people, who make these offerings under the guise of stipends 
for Masses, etc. 


It is also to be noted that it is absolutely unlawful for a 
priest to set any fixed stipend for the administration of Extreme 
Unction. This has been taken entirely out of his hands by 
Canons 736 and 1507, 1; and reserved to a provincial council 
or a convention of the bishops of the province, whose decision 
must be approved by the Holy See. 


2. The second cause responsible for the deferment of the 
reception of the sacrament had its origin in the superstitions 
of the people. The lower classes of the Continental countries 
had very little opportunity for education in the Middle Ages— 
and the percentage of illiteracy was very high. Superstition 
thrives upon ignorance, and thus we find every sort of des- 
picable credulity among the people of that day. It became a 
matter of common belief that the recipient of Extreme Unction, 
if he recovered, had to mortify himself to a very great extent. 
He was forbidden to dance, to eat fiesh meat, to touch the floor 
with his bare feet, to indulge in marital relations, ete.’ 
Shrinking from the rigor of these, the poor misguided people 
postponed the summoning of the priest until every hope of 
recovery was gone. Lingard, in his Antiquities of the Anglo- 


153 Cf. Chardon, Histoire du Sacr. de ’Extreme Onction, c. 3 apud Migne, 
Curs. Theol. Comp., Vol. XX, 760 sqq.; see also the sermon by the 
monk Berthold of Ratisbon, apud Harduin VII, 1801. 


154 Extreme Unction 


Saxon Church, refers to these customs: 

“It appears to have been sometimes received with reluctance by 
the illiterate, from an idea that it was a kind of ordination which 
induced the obligation of continency and abstinence from flesh on 
those who afterwards recovered. The clergy were ordered to preach 
against this erroneous notion.’ ’154 


The synodal enactment of the thirteenth century evidence 
not only the existence of such silly beliefs but also the strenuous 
steps taken to correct them. Thus Richard Poore placed among 
his Constitutiones this prescription: ‘‘Moneant sacerdotes fre- 
quenter populum hog sacramentum licite iterari posse; scilicet 
in qualibet gravi infirmitate de qua metus imminet mortis. Di- 
cant et denuncient confidenter quod post susceptum hoe sacra- 
mentum licitum est reverti ad opus conjugale.5’? Much 
stronger language was used by the Synod of Wigorniensis: 


‘‘Sunt autem quidam, ut audivimus, qui post perceptionem 
hujusmodi sacramenti sanitati pristinae restitui nefas reputant, vel 
uxores suas cognoscere, vel carnes comedere, vel etiam aliqua ratione 
nudis pedibus ambulare. Horum autem errorum, utpote doctrinae 
sanae contrariam, execramur, et eos excommunicationibus et moni- 
tionibus duximus corrigendos, quia ferro abscindenda sunt vulnera 
quae fomenta non capiunt.’’156 


Similar efforts were made by the Synod of Exeter!7 in 
1287; by the Councils of Normandy,158 held under Peter di 
Collomedio, the Archbishop of Rouen in the middle of the 
thirteenth century; by the Synod of Wintoniensis!® at the 
beginning of the fourteenth century; and by the Synod of 
Bayeux in 1300.16 


In later years another superstition arose to the effect that 
wills made after Unction had no juridie value. This belief 
spread very widely in Belgium and in Germany. At the be- 
ginning of the seventeenth century the Council of Mechlin made 


154 p. 156, footnote 23. 

155 cap. 68 (anno 1217)—Harduin VII, 107; also apud Van Espen, Jus 
Eccl. Univ., P. II, s. 1, tit. 8, . g, n. 16. 

156 Harduin VII, '337—antio 1240—n. 19: also apud Van Espen, Le., n. 17. 

157 Harduin VII, 1081. 

158 Cf. Martene, De Antiq. Eccl. Rit; I. 1s 0.7; evens Oi 

159 Cf, Van Espen, le., Catalano, Rit. ‘Bom. t. if p. 305, 

160 Harduin VII, 1237. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 155 
and Repetition 


a determined attempt to eradicate it: 

‘*Falluntur qui existimant, suscepto hoc sacramento, vel testa- 
mentum condi non posse vel spem convalescendi ob id imminui. 
Ideoque pastores contrarium subinde populum doceant. Et si forte 
alicubi usu introductum sit, ut testamentum a susceptione hujus 
sacramenti conditum non subsistat, declarat haec synodus, ejusmodi 
consuetudinem pro corruptela habendam esse, utpote causam, cur 
differatur, iique interim effectus sacramenti non percipiant et saepe 
etiam sine eo moriantur.’’161 


Searcely had the faithful been liberated from such vile 
beliefs by the constant propaganda of the Church than the 
tempter of the human race injected into the minds of the people 
a fear worse than all the other superstitions above-mentioned. 
The people began to believe that the ministration of the Unction 
presaged the final outcome of the illness, that the reception of 
the oils upon the senses was an unfailing harbinger of death. 
The consequence was that people shrank from Extreme Unction 
with the same horror as they recoiled from death itself. 

Naturally the Church used all her power to expugn this 
erroneous conception from the minds of the faithful. The 
Synod of Bordeaux declared: 

‘Curent etiam crebris monitionibus imperitum vulgus ab illa 
inani et impia opinione abducere, qua plerique sinistre de hujus 
sacramenti virtute sentiunt, perinde ac si mortem aegris acceleret; 
quum certum sit ex apostoli doctrina, Deum non animae tantum, 
verum etiam corpori, si expedierit, virtute hujus sacramenti, salutem 
conferre, ’ 7162 

Especial mention of this error is also found in the decree of 
the Council of Mechlin just quoted. Laconically, but none 
the less forcefully, a rubric of the Ritual of Strasburg reads: 
*““Solantur sacramenta, non occidunt; hoe saepe saepius Pastor 
mentibus fidelium inculcet.’’® 

Even today this problem still confronts the Church. The 
minds of the people reveal at times vestiges of this old error, 
despite the continued efforts of the clergy to exterminate it. 
In the second synod of the diocese of Kansas City, Mo., held 
in 1912, the following enactment was made: 


161 anno 1607—Harduin X, 1946. 
162 anno 1583—tit. 13, apud Harduin X, 1347. 
163 Cf. Benedict XIV, De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, c. 7, n. 2. 


156 Extreme Unction 


‘‘Studeant igitur animarum curatores repellere insulsissimam 
opinionem, ne superstitionem dicamus, inter non paucos vigentem, 
quod receptio illius sacramenti sit mortis impendentis judicium.’’164 


In a similar vein a decree of the third synod of Rochester 
reads: 


‘Cum saepe contingat apud fideles nostrorum temporum, quod 
Extremam Unctionem considerent quasi nuntium mortis instanter 
impendentis et nullo modo velut medium illius praecavendae, studeant 
parochi, in suis ad populum sermonibus, hujusmodi terrorem miti- 
gare, et ad maturam hujus sacramenti receptionem fideles adhortari, 
eos docendi non solum de ejusdem spirituali utilitate, sed etiam, licet 
secundo loca, de auxilio, quod praestat, ad sanitatem corporis re- 
cuperandam.’ 7165 


In a letter to the Sodalists of the Bona Mors Society, Pius XI 
took advantage of the opportunity to insert a mention of the 
correct view: 


‘‘In hoc autem potissimum, cum sodalium tum praecipue zela- 
torum studiosam voluntatem desideramus advocatam, ut exitialem 
quoquo pacto profligent errorem, ex quo fit, ut, cum animae detri- 
mento, sancto oleo non ante liniantur infirmi quam, morte immi- 
nente, sensus paene vel omnino amiserunt.’’166 


3. While the people floundered about in the darkness of 
Superstition, erroneous theological opinions befogged the intel- 
lects of the priests and produced the same effects. Scotus! 
and his followers held that the principal effect of Extreme 
Unetion was the final remission of venial sins. The consequence 
was the postponement of the administration of the sacrament 
until the subject was no longer capable of sinning, i. e., When 
he was very close to death. 


Many priests, awed by the weight of the authority support- 
ing this opinion’®® and conscientiously solicitous of their flock’s 
best interests, waited in good faith until the last breath was 
almost drawn before they imparted Extreme Unction. It was 
doubtless under the influence of this doctrine that two synods 


164 Decreta Syn. Dioces. Kansanop. Secund., n. 124. 

165 anno 1914—Acta Synodi Roffensis Tertiae, n. 340. 

166 Litt. ap., ‘“Explorata res est,’’ Feb. 2, 1923—A.A.8., XV, 105. 

167 Reportata Parisiensia, a. xiii, q. unic. 

168 Dicastillo, Sambovius, De Sainte-Beuve, Tournely, St. Bonaventure, 
Frassen and Mastrio—cf. supra, chap. ce p. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 157 
and Repetition 


of the sixteenth century described the subject as ‘‘the danger- 
ously sick and almost dying.’’? 

The Council of Trent succeeded in correcting this erro- 
neous notion of practical procedure ;!* and since that time 
Seotists have been compelled to modify their ideas on the ad- 
missibility of sick people to the sacrament before all capability 
of committing sin had passed. 


The cumulation of these three causes, coupled with the 
religious disturbances of the sixteenth century, had the unfor- 
tunate effect of producing practically a total abandonment of 
the sacrament in parts of Germany and Bavaria.!™ With great 
distress the Holy Father addressed a letter to the papal legate 
in that land: ‘‘Non absque gravi gemitu comperit Sua Sanc- 
titas, in infinitis propemodum partibus Germaniae ob negligen- 
tiam parochorum ac fortasse etiam episcoporum sacramentum 
Extremae Unctionis pene abolitum esse.‘**”’ 


In places where the sacrament had not fallen into desue- 
tude, the postponement of its administration until the last mo- 
ments of the dying man was found to be almost universal. It 
was this usage that prompted Calvin to remark with scorech- 
ing scorn: 

‘‘Quamquam etiamsi obtinuerint huic aetati convenire, quod de 

Unctione a Jacobo praecipitur (a qua longissime absunt), nec sic 

quidem adhuc multum promoverint in approbanda sua Unctione, qua 


hactenus illiverunt. Jacobus omnes infirmos vult inungi; isti non 
infirmos, sed semi-mortua cadavera sua pinguedine inficiunt.’’173 


The true Catholic doctrine is found midway between the 
abuses of the East and of the West. It is, therefore, not to be 
sought in either procedure, but rather in the Coneiliar state- 
ments, the dogmatic definitions and the officially approved 
eatechisms of the Church. Thru all ages of the existence of 
the Bride of Christ, her official pronouncements assert con- 





169 Cone. Aquense (Harduin X, 1535) ; Avenionense (tbid., 1848). 

170 Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct., cap. 3. 

171 Knopfler, Die Kelchbewegung im Bayern unter Herzog Albrecht A 
p. 61 sq. 

172 Knopfier, 1. c. 

173 Institutiones, lib. IV, ¢. 19, paragr. 21. 


158 Extreme Unction 


stantly and consistently that the subject of Extreme Unction 
is a person “‘graviter aegrotans’’ in danger of death. 

There is no other rational deduction from the Scriptural 
text, as has already been shown.!** Tradition is even clearer, re- 
vealing a series of official and private documents gloriously in 
accord with the Jacobean dictum. 

Thus against the Eastern abuses there is a multitude of 
testimony. Innocent I, in his letter to Decentius,!” gives an 
official interpretation to the words of St. James. After quoting 
the text, the Pope remarks: ‘‘Non est dubium de fidelibus 
aegrotantibus accipi vel intelligi debere, qui sancto oleo perungi 
possunt.”’ 

Local statutes furnish abundant evidence as to the require- 
ments of the subject in this regard. Thus the Statuta S. Sona- 
tw, who was archbishop of Rheims from the year 600 to the 
year 631, prescribe that ‘‘Extrema Unctio deferatur laboranti 
et petenti.’’'"° Similar testimony is furnished by the enact- 
ments of Egbert of York! (732-766); Theodulphus,178 the 
bishop of Orleans in the last quarter of the eighth century; 
St. Chrodegang,!” the bishop of Metz (742-766) ; Halitgarius,18° 
the bishop of Cambrai (817-831) ; Isaae,1®! the bishop of Lan- 
gres (859-880), who collected decrees of the synods which had 
been approved by Pope Zachary in 742; and by Heardus,!8? the 
archbishop of Tours in the middle of the ninth century. 


Later coneiliar legislation carried on the tradition and cor- 
roborated the true contention that no slight illness sufficed to 
make the subject capable of Unction. This can be found in the 
canons of the Councils of Chalons-sur-Saone,!®* Aachen,!%4 


174 Cf. supra, chap, I, sec. II, p. 

175 Ep. ‘‘ Si instituta ecclesiastica,’’? 19 Mart. 416, ec. 8—C. I. C. Fontes, 
Teel, 

176 n. 1S—M. P. L., 80, 445—Cf. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, III, p. 77. 

117 “* Baceptiones e Jure Sacerdotali Egberti, archiepiscopi Eboracensis,’? 
ne, AXI—M PS i 897582 

178 “*Capitulare ad Prebyteros Paroeciae Suae’’—M. P. L., 126, 246. 

179 Lib. Poenitent., M. P. L., 105, 680. 

180 ““ Regula Canonicorum’’—M. P. L., 89, 1088. 

181 cap. 23—M. P. L., 124, 1075 sqq. 

182 Synodus Turonensis (anno 858), cap. 21 et 56—M. P. L. 121, 764. 

183 can. 48, Harduin IV, 1040. 

184 ¢, IT, can. 5 et 8—Harduin IV, 1395, 1397. 


Requisites in the Subject for Adauinistration 169 
and Repetition 


Mainz’® and Pavia,!®® all of which were celebrated in the ninth 
century. 

The Greeks, too, even after the schism, professed that unc- 
tion should be given only to the seriously sick. Michael Pale- 
ologus in his profession of faith at the second Council of Lyons 
avowed: ‘‘Alud [sacramentum est] Extrema Unctio, quae se- 
ecundom doctrinam beati Jacobi infirmatibus adhibeatur.’’ 157 
The perdurance of this belief is evidenced by the Metrophanes 
Critopolus long afterward in his definition of Extreme Unction: 
‘‘Huchelaion est ritus mysticus, per oleum et preces ab ecclesia 
pro fidelibus aegrotantibus celebratus.’’ 188 


Additional proof may be gathered from an investigation 
into the ancient liturgies. Generally they supposed that the 
man was too sick to come to the priests. The priests had to 
approach the sick man, and provision was made for ceremonies 
in a private house. The Ritual of Chalons-sur-Marne 1°° explic- 
itly states that the oils are only to be applied to those danger- 
ously ill: ‘‘Seiendum igitur est quod non ministratur excom- 
munieatis, &e., sed solum graviter infirmis.’’ Moreover, the 
elaborate ceremonial used in bestowing the sacrament was alto- 
gether too solemn to be employed in the ease of those but 
slightly ill. 

The practice of the Greeks will not bear the searching 
serutiny of theological reason. St. Thomas argues thus: ‘‘This 
sacrament is a spiritual healing .. . and is signified by way of a 
healing of the body. Hence this sacrament should not be con- 
ferred on those who are not subjects for bodily healing, those, 
namely who are in good health.’’ 1°! In answer to the objection 
that a more principal effect is the cure of the soul, the Angelic 


185 ¢, 26—Harduin V, 13. 

186 cap. 8—Harduin V, 27. 

187 anno 1274—C. I. C. Fontes, n. 35. 

188 Cf, Kimmel, Libri Symbolict Ecclesiae Orientalis, appendix, p. 151. 

189 Martene, De Antig. Ecc. Rit., lib. I, ¢. 7, a. 4, Ordo XXVII. 

190 Cf. Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 294. 

191 Suppl., q. 32, a. 1. This argument of St. Thomas does not impress 
Soto (Comm. in lib. IV Sent., dist. xxiii, q. 2, a. 2) or Durandus, 
whom Soto quotes as stating: ‘‘Sequeretur quod baptismus non 
deberet applicari nisi ei qui sordidus est ut per externam lotionem 
designaretur interior. Imo et paenitentia non deberet impendi nisi 
mortuis corporaliter, quia est suscitatio spiritualis.’’ 


160 Extreme Unction 


Doctor writes: ‘‘ Although spiritual health is the principal ef- 
fect of this sacrament, yet this same spiritual healing needs to 
be signified by a healing of the body, although bodily health 
may not actually ensue. Consequently spiritual health can be 
conferred by this sacrament on those alone who are competent 
to receive bodily healing, viz., the sick; even as he alone can 
receive Baptism who is capable of a bodily washing.’’!% 

After excluding those entirely well, St. Thomas proceeds 
to remove those but slightly ill from the number of valid recip- 
ients. ‘‘This sacrament,’’ he writes,!%? ‘‘is the last remedy that 
the Church can give, since it is an immediate preparation for 
glory. Therefore it ought to be given to those only, who are so 
sick as to be in a state of departure from this life, thru their 
sickness being of such a nature as to cause death, the danger 
of which is to be feared.’’ Truly if the end of Unction is to 
procure an immediate entrance into glory (provided a longer 
life is not more expedient), it must be given to those only who 
are afflicted with a disease which makes it probable that they 
will die. Suarez proposes this argument in these words: 


‘‘Est hoe sacramentum institutum tanquam extremum remedium 
hominum infirmorum et morientium, quo et in gravissimo mortis 
periculo juventur et ad gloriae introitum, quoad fieri possit, dis- 
ponantur; ergo ut minimum requirit hominem ita decumbentem, ut ex 
tali infirmitate mors possit moraliter timers saltem remote et quantum 
est ex natura talis aegritudinis in talt subjecto. Item cum sanitas 
etiam corporis per hoc sacramentum procuretur, certe supponi debet 
infirmitas ex se gravis, nam verisimile non est, tale sacramentum esse 


institutum propter quamlibet levem aegritudinem curandum. Et 
sane, si sacramentum hoe valide dari posset cuilibet aegrotanti com- 


muni et ordinario morbo, ex quo nullum periculum timeretur, non 
esset, cur omnibus hujusmodi infirmis tale sacramentum denegaretur, 
ita ut licite illis dari non posset. Cur enim privarentur hoc sacra- 
mento, cum alias nulla tali sacramento irreverentia fieret. Requiritur 
ergo gravis seu lethalis morbus etiam ad valorem sacramenti.’’194 


Soto (ef. supra, chap. I, sect. 5, n. 4) teaches that corporal 
cure followed in some degree from every administration of the 
sacrament. Hence it is but logical for him to argue as follows, 


192 Suppl. 9. 32, a. 1 (translated by the Fathers of the Eng. Dom. 
province). 

193 Suppl., q. 32, a. 2 (translated by the Fathers of Eng. Dom. province). 

194 D, 42,8. 2, n. 4. 


Requisites in the Subject for Adminstration 161 
and Repetition 


whereby he reaches the selfsame conclusion as Aquinas and 
Suarez: 

‘Ratio vero potissima est quod effectus hujus sacramenti, ut 
dictum est, non solum est gratiam conferre, sed etiam ab infirmitate 
corporea liberare. Et quia ex effectu sacramenti debet judicium 
sumi materiae et subjecti, inde colligitur quod subjectum de essentia 
hujus sacramenti est homo infirmus. Itaque nullum esset sacra- 
mentum poenitentiae si absolveretur puer qui nullum haberet pecca- 
tum actuale, eo quod illud sacramentum ad remissionem illorum de- 
lictorum institutum est: ita si ungeretur ille qui non est infirmus, 


nullum esset sacramentum quia deesset materia effectus ejus. Et 
simile exemplum est in ordinibus: si mulier sacerdotio initaretur, 


nullum esset sacramentum, quia non est subjectum capax.’’195 


On the other hand it is certainly very alien to the mind of 
the Church to defer the administration of Extreme Unction 
until the illness has attained to such an intensity that the man 
is actually dying. As Martene!®* notes: ‘‘Nihil ab Ecclesiae 
mente et proposito ita alienum unquam extitit.’’ 


There is abundant proof to substantiate this. Once again 
exploring the text of Innocent’s letter, we find that he speaks 
of ‘‘fidelibus aegrotantibus,’’ not of ‘‘aegrotantibus ad extre- 
mam vitae spatium deductis.’’ Then he subjoins immediately : 
‘‘Poenitentibus istud infundi non potest, quia genus est sacra- 
menti. Nam quibus reliqua sacramenta negantur, quomodo 
unum genus putatur posse concedi?’’ Yet in another letter '°7 
the same Pope noted that this prohibition of administering the 
sacraments to those doing canonical penance did not apply 
when such persons were ‘‘in extremo fine vitae suae.’’ Accord- 
ingly the cessation of the cause which forbade the reception of 
Extreme Unction prior to that time opened the way to its 
legitimate reception during the last moments. If anything can 
be deduced at all, it is this—the Pontiff wished to indicate that 
the Unction could be given to the rest of the faithful even 
before they were actually dying, provided that they were truly 
aegrott. This is corroborated by a statute of the Council of 


195 Comm. in quart. lib. Sent., dist. xxiii, q. 2, a. 2. 
196 De Antig. Ecc. Rit., 1.1, ¢. 7, a. 2, n. 1. 
197 Ep. 6, ad Exuperium, nu. 6B—M. P. L. 20, 498-99. 


162 Extreme Unction 


Pavia, held in 850: 

‘Hoe tamen sciendum, quod si is qui infirmatur publicae poeni- 
tentiae mancipatus est, non potest hujus mysterii consequi medi- 
cinam, nisi prius reconciliatione percepta communionem Corporis et 
Sanguinis Christi meruerit. Cui enim reliqua sacramenta interdicta 
sunt, hoc uno nulla ratione uti conceditur,’ 198 


The fact that the administration of Unction was made im- 
mediately after Penance and before Viaticum in ancient days 
further substantiates the proposition that Extreme Unction is 
not only for those actually dying. People able to receive Holy 
Communion are as a general rule not ‘“‘in extremis.’? Mar- 
tene’®® gives more than a score of examples, taken from his- 
torical sources, which evidence this order of administering the 
last sacraments. Similarly, Launoi 2°° enumerates many Rituals 
which preseribe the administration of Unction prior to Viaticum. 
Local legislation prescribed the immediate application of the 
oil after the sick man’s confession and deferred Holy Viaticum 
to a time of greater danger. Thus the famous Council of Aachen 
enacted: ‘‘Si subditus infirmitate depressus fuerit, ne confes- 
sione atque orationi sacerdotali neenon unctione sacrati olei per 
ejus [presbyteri] negligentiam careat. Denique si finem urgen- 
tem perspexerit, commendet animam christianam Domino Deo 
suo more sacerdotali cum acceptione S. Communionis.’’29! The 
Capitulare of Charlemagne and of Louis the Pious contained 
this regulation: ‘‘Si infirmitate depressus quis fuerit, vitam 
suam sine communione non finiat, nee unctione sacrati olei ca- 
reat, et si finem perspiciat, sacrosancto corpore Deo anima ejus 
a sacerdote precibus commendetur.*°?’’ Eucharist is ordered 
to be given twice, once prior to and once after the Unction. 
It proves clearly that two stages of the illness were recognized, 
viz., one when a man is seriously ill and in danger of death, and 
the other when a man is already ‘‘in extremis.’’ 


The proposition is further supported by the fact that Ex- 
treme Unction and Viaticum used to take place for seven suc- 


198 cap. VIII, Harduin V, 27. 

199 De Antiq. Eccl. Rit., L 1, ¢. 7, a. 2, n. 3. Cf. also Ordines III, IV, V, 
ALLL, Saeed; XU, XIII, XVI, XIX, XX, XXII, XXIII, XXVI (1. 
G, a. 4). 

200 Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 596 sqq. Cf. Binterim, Denwiirdigkeiten, 6 B34 
p. 306 s 

201 Cap. 2, can. 5—Harduin IV, 1397, 

202 Launoi, op. cit., p. 595. 


Requisites in the Subject for Adminstration 163 
and Repetition 


cessive days. Old Rituals, like that of Tours,?° ete., prescribed 
the imparting of Viaticum and Unction every day for a week— 
a certain sign that such a subject was not in extremis. 

Other rubries of the ancient Ordines also conspire to prove 
this contention. Thus the custom existed in some places to 
anoint in the Church ;2% while the liturgical laws of other locali- 
ties directed the unction of the subject in a kneeling or a 
sitting posture.2°° Some rubrics ordered the sick man to chant, 
others to make a long and very complete confession of faith.?% 
In the Greek Ritual we find the following rubric: ‘‘Tum vero 
in medium sacerdotum ingreditur qui Extremam Unctionem 
suscipit, et acceptum sanctum Evangelium ponit super caput 
ejus sacerdotum praecipuus.’’207 

Reason itself decries the postponement of this sacrament. In 
the first place, a man in extremis can co-operate with the sacra- 
mental graces only in a very imperfect manner, and thus he 
may be deprived of an immediate entrance into heaven. The 
principal effect is frustrated to a great extent. The spiritual 
consolation, the comfort ef the soul against torpor and tempta- 
tion, against depression and despair, is reduced to almost noth- 
ing by such a tardy reception. Moreover, the possibility of re- 
covering health is totally nullified. Such an effect follows from 
the redundancy of the soul’s exhilaration upon the body. If 
the effect is obstructed in regard to the soul, there will be 
corresponding loss in regard to the body. 

Since the Council of Florence, the matter has been settled in 
theory, although in practice a priest will often find that he is 
summoned in the last stages of sickness. Pope Eugene, in his 
decree to the Armenians,?°* noted that the subject was a sick 
man whose death was feared. The Council of Trent reiterated 
this statement, and made incidentally the same distinction be- 


203 Martene, De Antig. Eccl. Rit., 1. 1, c. 7, a. 4 (ordo III). Cf. also 
Ordines IV, VIII and XIX. 

204 Cf. Martene, l.c., a. 2, n. 7. 

205 Cf. Martene, l.c., a. 4 (Ordines IV, XII and XXV). Cf. also vita S. 
Ottonis, Acta SS. July 2, 1. 4, ¢ 4 

206 Cf. Warren, The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church; Martene, 
De Antig. Eccl. Rit., J. 1, ¢. 7, a. 4 (Ordines IV, XXIT, XXTIT). 

207 Translated into Latin by Martene, l.c., Ordo XXX. 

208 Const. ‘‘Eaultate Deo’’ (in Conc. Florentin.) 22 Nov., 1439, n. 14— 
C. I. C. Fontes, n. 52. 


164 Extreme Unction 


tween the stages of illness as did the old Council of Aachen: 
‘“‘Declaratur etiam esse hane Unctionem infirmis adhibendam, 
illis vero praesertim, qui tam periculose decumbunt, ut in exitu 
vitae constituti videantur.’’°°9 In consonance with this decree 


the Catechism of the Council reads: 


‘‘Quum igitur illi tantum qui morbo laborant curatione indigent; 
ideireo iis etiam, qui adeo periculose aegrotare videntur, ut, ne 
supremus illis vitae dies instet, metuendum sit, hoc sacramentum 
praeberi debet. In quo tamen gravissime peccant qui illud tempus 
aegroti ungendi observare solent, quum jam, omni salutis spe amissa, 
vota et sensibus carere incipiat.’’210 


Since the Council of Trent local synods have exhorted the 
faithful to receive the sacrament at a more opportune time, to 
put away the foolish notion that it is a messenger of death, 
and to look upon it as a divine gift with far-reaching powers 
over the soul and the body.*44_ The Roman Ritual states plainly 
the desirable time to confer Unction: 


‘‘Extremae Unctionis Sacramentum ... omni studio ac dili- 
gentia periculose aegrotantibus adhibendum est, et eo quidem tem- 
pore, si fieri possit, cum illis adhuec integra mens et ratio viget, ut 
ad uberiorem Sacramenti gratiam percipiendam, ipsi etiam suam 
fidem ac piam animi voluntatem conferre possint, dum sacro lini- 
untur Oleo.’’212 


It is certain now that a person in order to be a valid subject 
for Extreme Unction must 1) be afflicted with a serious disease 
which is putting him in danger of death, but 2) not necessarily 
to such an extent that he is outside the pale of recovery. The 
present Canon of the Code confirms this. The subject is one 
““qui... . ob infirmitatem .... in periculo mortis versetur.’’ 

Hence the subject must be sick, and in danger of death from 
the sickness. Neither without the other is sufficient. Canon 
523 shows that the Code recognizes a state of serious sickness 


209 Sess. XIV, de Ext. Unct., cap. 3. 

210 De Sac. Ext. Unct., n. 9. 

211 Cf. Synods of Milan (1565), Bordeaux (1584) and Rheims (1584) apud 
Natalis Alexander, Theol. Dog. et Mor., lib. II, ¢. 5, reg. 14; Bourges 
(1584)—Harduin X, 1489; Toulouse (1590)—Harduin X, 1804; 
Beneventano (1693)—Coll. Lac., I, p. 30; Westminster (1852), n. 
eae Lac., III, 395; Aix-la-Chapelle (1850)—Coll. Lae. IV, 
Yo; ete. 

BLS TVs eats Mes da 





Requisites in the Subject for Adminstration 165 
and Repetition 

that does not place the patient in danger of death. Nor is 
danger of death without sickness enough. It is absolutely -re- 
guired that the danger shall come ex intrinseco, from the patient 
himself. As Genicot-Salsmans puts it: ‘‘Necesse est ut istud 
periculum oriatur ex dispositione intrinseca seu infirmitate 
corporis, viz., ex morbo vel ex causa quae morbo aequiperari 
soleat.’’*13 


Consequently those about to be executed,*4* those entering 
battle, those about to start upon a perilous journey are in no 
wise capable of a valid reception of the sacrament from such 
cause alone. These dangers are extrinsic, they do not emanate 
‘Cox defectu naturae, sed ex eventu fortunae.’’*!© Similarly, 
those on a sinking ship, those in a burning building, those in 
danger of suffocation,*1® are not valid subjects. Martyrs, too, 
may not be anointed before martyrdom. However, if death 1s 
induced gradually (as in the martyrdom of St. Lawrence or of 
St. Sebastian), the sacrament can be efficaciously bestowed when 
the subject becomes in danger of death from his wounds.?? 


On the other hand, all those in danger of death from an 
intrinsie cause can validly and licitly receive the Unction. Hence, 
not only the seriously sick, but also those dangerously wounded, 
those who have swallowed poison*!® and those who have been 
taken out of the water when almost drowned*!® are able to be 
anointed. In each of these instances the life of the subject is 
threatened from an internal cause. 


213 Inst. Th. M., II, 422. 

214 Baruffaldo (Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., t. I, tit. xxvii, n. 85-86) makes men- 
tion of some very peculiar reasons why this sacrament cannot be 
administered to condemned criminals. Thus it was said that it was 
denied these men because of the irreverence that would be shown 
if the anointed feet of the criminal should touch the ground on the 
way to the scaffold. Another reason advanced was that the sacra- 
ment could not be given to them because one of its effects, viz., 
corporal cure, had no chance to be verified on account of the im- 
pending death sentence. If this were so, adults after baptism could 
not be anointed because the remission of sins could not be veri- 
fied in them. 

215 VI Cone. Beneventanum, tit. 8, cap. 1—Cf. Catalano, Rit. Rom., tom. 1, 
p. 313. 

216 Barbosa, De Off. et Pot. Parochi, ¢. 22, n. 11. 

217 Cf. Gobat, Moralium, Tr. VIII, nn. 848-50. 

218 Manual of Cambrai, apud Catalano, l.c.; Noldin, De Sac., n. 443. 

219 Dens, Tract. De Sac. Ext. Unct., N. 8, p. 53. 


166 Extreme Unction 


The first question naturally is: When is a disease considered 
to put the patient in a danger of death? Is it sufficient that it 
be fatal by its very nature? Or must it have developed sufficient 
intensity in the case of the individual patient as to threaten his 
life? And finally, how serious must the danger be before 
administration may be made? 


D’Annibale **° states that ‘‘periculum mortis’’ signifies 
“‘illud rerum discrimen in quo, cum quis constitutus est, ipsum 
et superesse et occumbere posse, utrumque est vere graviterque 
probabile.’’ The Council of Limoges, celebrated in 1519, was 
much stricter: ‘‘Datur infirmis graviter aegrotantibus quando 
magis speratur de morte quam de vita.’’221_ The Synod of 
Angers at the end of the thirteenth century had demanded even 
a more serious condition of the patient: ‘‘Hoe Sacramentum 
tantum est in extremo vitae articulo conferendum, quando in- 
firmus in brevi ex hac vita credatur migraturus.’’222 

Later authors are not nearly so strict in their demands. They 
State that solid probability of subsequent death resulting from 
the disease is quite sufficient. As soon as this probable danger 
of death exists, the subject becomes capable of receiving the 
Unction. A distinction is drawn between the time when the 
sacrament may be given and when it must be given. Thus 
St. Alphonsus: 


‘‘Advertendum quod distinguere oporteat quando extrema unctio 
dari debeat, et quando dari possit. Adest quidem obligatio ... eam 
ministrandi cum urget periculum proximae mortis. Caeterum com- 
muniter docent DD. valide et licite posse dari extremam unctionem 
statim ac prudenter judicatur infirmus laborare periculo mortis, etsi 
adhue non proximae.’’223 


This distinction has been accepted by many others, including 
Scavini,?*4 Genicot?2> and Noldin.226 A papal document of 


220 Summ. Th. M., I, 38. 

221 Cf. Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. 1, p. 557. 

222 Cf. De Sainte-Beuve, De Ext. Unct., disp. VII, a. 2—apud Migne, Curs. 
Theol. Comp., vol. XXIV, col. 119-120. 

223 Th. M., VI, 714. 

224 Th. M., III, 442. 

225 Th. M., II, 422. 

326 De Sac., 443. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 167 
and Repetition 


extremely recent issue confirms this distinction : 

‘‘In hoe autem potissimum, cum sodalium, tum praecipue zela- 
torum studiosam voluntatem desideramus advocatam, ut exitialem 
quoquo pacto profligent errorem, ex quo fit ut cum animae detrimento 
sancto oleo ante liniantur infirmi quam, morte imminente, sensus 
paene vel omnino amiserunt. Neque enim, ut sacramentum valade 
liciteque detur, necesse est ut mors proxime secutura timeatur, sed 
satis est ut prudens seu probabile adstt de periculo judiciwm; quodsi 
in ea rerum condicione conferri debet, in hac conferri utique potest, 
et illud curet ministrandum, is Ecclesiae Matris non modo doc- 
trinam sequitur, sed optata pie ac salubriter perficit.’’227 


Thus all that is required for valid and licit administration is 
a probable danger of death. The probability must rest on truly 
solid grounds, else the sacrament cannot be given, at least 
absolutely. ‘‘Tale judicium,’’ writes Genicot,”*® ‘‘elicitum sive 
a medico sive ab alio experientia edocto, requiritur et sufficit ut 
extrema unctio conferri possit; ac sane optandum et conandum 
est ut, nisi specialis ratio differendi obstet, majus et certius 
periculum non expectetur.”’ 

Probability of death must be understood reasonably, in 
accordance with the mind of the Church. Hence, as Genicot ??° 
notes, a man can be in probable danger of death, even though 
the likelihood of his recovery is more probable. A ‘‘dubium 
positivum de morte secutura’’ will furnish sufficient prob- 
ability for action.?*° 


Sometimes there is a doubt about the solidity of the prob- 
ability. In such an instance the older authors **! forbade ad- 
ministration. The next canon however permits a conditional 
administration in this case. Hence, we must distinguish: (1) 
when there is a positive doubt ‘‘de morte secutura,’’ the sacra- 
ment may be bestowed absolutely ; (2) when there is a positive 


227 Pius XI, Litt. Ap., ‘‘Explorata res est,’’ Feb. 2, 1923—A. A. S., XV, 
105. Cf. also Benedict XV, Litt. Ap., ‘‘Sodalitatem,’’ May 31, 
1921—A. A. §., XIII, 342: ‘‘Qui in discrimine ultimo versantur, 
sacri viatici et extremae Unctionis susceptionem ne eo usque re- 
morentur cum sensum amissuri jam sunt, sed, contra, quemadmodum 
Ecclesia docet et praecipit, iis roborentur Sacramentis vixdum, in- 
gravescente morbo, prudens fiat de periculo mortis judicium.’’ 

228 Inst. Th. M., II, 422. 

229 Lc. 

230 Vermeersch-Creusen, Hpit., II, 225. 

231 St. Alph., Th. M., VI, 714; Scavini, Th. M., III, 442, etc. 





168 Extreme Unction 


doubt ‘‘num infirmitas sit periculosa,’’ the sacrament must be 
given conditionally. 

It must be noted, too, that although administration is al- 
lowable to a patient when there is a probable and prudent doubt 
that his life is threatened by the disease, yet if de facto there is 
no danger present in him, the sacrament is not valid. Kern does 
not agree with this at all. ‘‘Si objectivum periculum exigere- 
tur,’’ he argues,?8* ‘‘non raro accidit ut aegrotus a medicis de- 
positus, cujus mors in, horas expectatur, invalide inungeretur vi 
morbi jam fracta, quamvis ad extra id nondum appareat. Unde 
si Dominus objectivum vitae discrimen fecisset conditionem 
essentialem, ipse sacramentum cerebro pevriculo nullitatis et op- 
timos quosque sacerdotes anxiis scrupulis simulque infirmos perl- 
culo exposuisset, ne supernaturale auxilium eis denegaretur tem- 


pore quo maxime apti existerent ad plenum ejus fructum acce-- 


dente perfecta cooperatione propria percipienda.’’ WVermeersch 
is inclined to agree with Kern: ‘‘Valide et licite confertur. . . 
in morbo gravi et natura sua periculoso, quamvis nullum ob- 
jective sit vitae discrimen ; in morbo qui natura sua est periculo- 
sus et qui simul affligit graviter infirmum, quamvis nondum 
videatur (subjective) diserimen vitae secum ferre.’’ 233 


Noldin *** and Sebastiani 23> take issue with Kern and Ver- 
meersch and hold that Extreme Unction in a purely putative 
danger of death is absolutely invalid. By Christ’s institution, 
the subject of this sacrament is a sick man in danger of death 
truly and actually. This is explicitly required by the present 
canon: ‘‘in periculo mortis ob infirmitatem vel senium versetur.?’ 
The law does not say ‘‘versari videtur,’’ but speaks in an ob- 
Jective sense. This is confirmed by the insertion of ‘‘reipsa’’ 
into the phraseology of the next canon: ‘‘Quando dubitatur 
num... infirmus... in periculo mortis reipsa versetur, hos sa- 
cramentum ministretur sub condicione.’’ This implies that the 
objectivity of the danger is the determining factor whether the 
conditional unetion will be valid or not. 


232 Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 298, 
233 Th. M., ITI, 661. 
234 De Sac., 443. 


235 Summ. Th. M., n. 510; ef. Barry, Irish Eccl. Record, Fifth Series, Vol. 
XXVI (1925), p. 65. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 169 
and Repetition 


Neldin’s view is more probable, for there seems to be lack- 
ing on the part of the subject an essential condition for valid 
reception. In no other sacrament does subjective certitude on 
the part of the minister validate the administration to a man 
otherwise objectively incapable of reception. 

Suppose a man in a drunken stupor was mistakenly pro- 
nounced by a physician to be in danger of death. Suppose, too, 
that a priest, relying on the judgment of such a one, admin- 
istered Extreme Unction. Who will say that this administration 
is valid? How is such a subject in need of a spiritual exhilara- 
tion which presupposes a depression of soul from sickness? *%° 
Yet if subjective certainty on the part of the minister supplies 
for the lack of an essential condition in the subject, this admin- 
istration must have been validly received. 

How then are we to explain the various pronouncements, 
private and official, which permit administration of the sacra- 
ment when there is a prudent fear that death is threatening the 
patient? For example, Pius XI used this mode of expression: 
‘‘Neque enim, ut sacramentum valide liciteque detur, necesse est 
ut mors proxime secutura timeatur, sed satis est ut prudens seu 
probabile adsit de periculo judicium.’’ What can be said in 
answer to such phraseology ? 

A sharp distinction must be drawn between a valid and 
licit administration and a valid reception. The permissibility 
of administration does not automatically effect a validity of 
reception. The lack of an essential condition in the subject suc- 
cessfully obstructs such a valid and licit administration. In 
the confessional a priest may validly and licitly absolve a man 
whom he feels is well-disposed; but if de facto such a man has 
defective dispositions, the absolution is null. Hence it will be 
noticed that these official pronouncements and private writings 
speak of the legitimacy of the procedure on the part of the 
minister, but leave undiscussed the validity of the reception by 
the subject. 

Since this is true, since it is required that a person be in 
objective danger of death for valid reception, it can be seen 
how erroneous the opinion of St. Alphonsus is when he asserts 


236 Cf. W. McDonald, Irish Theol. Quarterly, Vol. II (1907), p. 54. 


170 Extreme Unction 


the validity of Extreme Unction administered in a grave sick- 
ness even where it is known that there is no danger of death.?*? 
The saint held that the danger of death was a condition re- 
quired only for the licit administration and reception of the 
sacrament. Pius XI declared that, ‘‘ut valide liciteque detur,’’ 
a prudent or probable judgment of the danger of death suf- 
ficed. If it suffices, there is also an implication that it is also 
required. 

With these principles in mind, the various contingencies 
that may arise in the matter of anointing must be discussed: 

1. If the disease is a slight one, even though there is a fear 
that it will subsequently become dangerous, Extreme Unction 
cannot be administered. Such a subject has not the depression 
of soul which the primary effect of the sacrament is ordained to 
remove. It is absolutely necessary that the subject be hic et 
mune capable of receiving this spiritual exhilaration; and thus 
any anticipated administrations are inadmissible. 

2. If a man is but lightly affected by a disease itself, but 
is nevertheless placed thereby in peril of sudden death, he is a 
valid and licit subject of the sacrament. Though severe bodily 
pains and depressions are to a great extent absent, nevertheless 
there are present all the needs for sacramental alleviation. The 
condition of the patient, not his symptoms, is to be considered. 
Cases of this kind happen frequently when persons are afflicted 
with cardiae conditions. It is in this way, also, that the unctiou 
of old people is justified.*%8 

3. If a man is seriously affected by a disease, which is of its 
nature dangerous, but which has not as yet placed the life of 
the patient in danger, (because in the judgment of a skilled 
physician it is pursuing its normal course), Kern 78° thinks that 
the Unction ean be validly and licitly bestowed. Vermeersch 7*° 
heartily agrees with him in this belief. 


Similarly, Suarez seems to incline to this view: 


‘* Addo in usu servandum esse, ut non solum morbus ex se gravis 
sit, sed etiam ut status talis sit qui infirmum in gravi periculo mortis 





237 Homo Apostolicus, tr. XVII, n. 7. 

238 Gobat, Moraliwm, Tr. VIII, n. 875; Gury-Ferreres, Casus Conc., II, 440. 
239 Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 298. 

240: Th. M:, ILI, 661. 


Requisites in the Subject for Adminstration 171 
and Repetition 


constituat. Ita docent omnes DD. &. ... Quia vero hic status non 
potest habere tantam certitudinem, multumque ex arbitrio pendet, 
ideo non videtur haec condicio ita substantialis, ut si forte aliquan- 
tulum praemature ungatur infirmus, sacramentum propterea sit nullum 
existimandum; quin potius quoties morbus ex se fuerit periculosus et 
gravis, existimo sacramentum esse validum, etiamsi ad statum morbi 
vel non satis, vel etiam nihil, attendatur.’’241 


Yet with the principles heretofore stated clearly in mind, 
it is hard to admit the permissibility of an unction in any case 
where there is not a prudent and probable danger of death. 
In this instance this danger will develop perhaps, but hic et nunc 
it is not present. The Code, however, seems to speak of the 
actual danger present at the time of reception: ‘“‘Non potest 
praeberi nisi fideli qui. . . ob infirmitatem in periculo mortis 
versetur.’’ Genicot takes issue with Kern and Vermeersch when 
he writes: 

‘¢Recipere possunt valide et licite extremam unctionem ii tantum 
in quibus habentur simul sequentes condiciones: 1) Ut sint bap- 


tizati... ; 2) Ut actualia peccata committere potuerint .... 3) 
ut sint infirmi; 4) ut de eorum morte tymeatur.’’242 


Noldin,243 too, requires for validity ‘‘ut [infirmus] ex morbo 
de vita periclitetur.’’ 

In practice even Kern 744 advises the minister to await the 
development of a certain danger of death, unless he foresees that 
by such a time the reason of the man will be so seriously im- 
paired that he will not be able to co-operate in any desirable de- 
gree with the sacramental graces. Since the opinion of Kern 
and Vermeersch is only probable, a pastor who anoints accord- 
ing to their view, should do so only conditionally ; and should 
repeat the unction conditionally when certain danger of death 
does develop. 

4. If a sick man is gravely afflicted by a disease whose 
nature and gravity is not yet apparent, he can be validly and 
licitly anointed, according to Kern. ‘‘Tantum enim abest,’’ he 





241 D, 42, s. 2, n. 5. 

242 Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 422. 
243 De Sac. n. 443. 

244 Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 298-99. 


Wp: Extreme Unction 


writes, ‘‘ut illa incertitudo de natura morbi, quae ex supposito 
cum vehementia hominem incessit, minuat depressionem animae, 
ut angores soleat augere. Pariter fundat timorem, ne periculum 
mortis immineat.’’ 245 

In this opinion he is not joined wholly by Vermeersch. The 
latter holds the permissibility of a conditional administration 
at least—and by his use of the term ‘‘saltem’’ betrays a hesitancy 
to condemn even an absolute administration in this case. ‘‘Sin 
infirmus graviter affligitur per morbum cujus natura nondum 
constat, poterit saltem condicionate ungi.’’ *46 


Canon 941 seems to cover the case. It orders a conditional 
bestowal of the sacrament whenever the danger of death is 
doubtful. If there is a doubt that the subject is in danger of 
death ‘‘reipsa’’—and this seems to be the case here— an abso- 
lute administration is altogether out of place. In such a sick- 
ness as this, the minister has two doubts: one as to the danger- 
ousness of the disease ex se, and another as to the actual pres- 
ence of danger in the patient. It is hard to see the rectitude of 
Kern’s contention in this instanee. 

o. If the disease brings with it a remote yet certain danger 
of death, the sacrament can be validly given. The subject in such 
a case is actually in danger of death. Whether it is advisable 
in individual instances to administer the sacrament to those who 
have still a long time to live depends much on local cireum- 
stances. Thus the Propaganda,*4* on February 20, 1801, per- 
mitted missionaries to anoint consumptives who had several 
months to live, but who would die within a year, because of the 
likelihood that the missionary might not be able to return to 
them. Such extraordinary circumstances make licit the ad- 
ministration of the sacrament. 


245 L.c. 

246 Th. M., III, 661. 

247 §. C. P. F., (C. P. pro Sin.)—Collectanea, n. 651: ‘‘Talora i mis- 
sionari visitando i loro distretti s’incontrano in qualche malato eti- 
co o d’altro morbo, che a certa sperienza durera molti mesi, ma 
dentro l’anno persisce: si cerca se in tale caso il missionario possa 
somministrargli il viatico e Estrema Unzione per la ragione che, 
quando sarebbe veramente nel grado suo di ricerla, allora il mis- 
sionario non si potra trovare presente nel luogo per la grande di- 
stanza, e per altre circonstanze impeditive. R. Affirmative. ’’ 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 173 
and Repetition 


In, other cases, such as the usual instances of consumption, 
cancer, etc., whose outcome will certainly be fatal yet whose dan- 
ger is but remote, very many factors will have to be considered 
by the priest in regard to the time most opportune to anoint. 
The present state of the disease will first claim attention. How 
far it has progressed and is afflicting the subject must be con- 
sidered. The hope of restoring health in virtue of the sanative 
powers of the sacrament and the question whether greater good 
will result from an administration now or later will be weighed 
by the prudent priest. The danger of scandal must not be over- 
looked. It may arise easily enough from the anointing of a 
Subject who is still able to walk about, and even perform his 
everyday duties. Pastoral prudence will dictate what is to be 
done in individual eases.?48 

There remain for particular consideration the imparting of 
this sacrament in two particular eases, viz., to women in partu- 
rition and to people before surgical operations. 

With regard to women in parturition, the following contin- 
gencies may arise: 


1, It may be foreseen that a woman, now in pregnancy, 
will have a difficult parturition which will endanger her 
life. Can such a woman be anointed? 

2. A woman, actually in parturition, may be in dan- 
ger of death from the usual pains and sorrows of that time. 
Can such a one be given the sacrament of Extreme Unc- 
tion ? 

3. A woman in parturition may be in danger of death 
from extraordinary and abnormal pains and sufferings ac- 
companying the puerperium. Is she a valid subject for this 
sacrament ? 


I. In regard to the first case, there is hardly any dispute. As 
has been noted often hitherto, the administration of Extreme 
Unetion cannot be anticipated. As the woman stands now, 
carrying the child in her womb, she is not in danger of death. 


248 Cf. Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 299. 


174 Extreme Unction 


It will be only when she attempts to give birth to the child that 
the danger will arise. Hence administration is inadmissible 
because of the lack of an essential condition in the subject. 

Petrus Dens writes: ‘‘Ob eandem rationem [i. e., quod 
periculum non provenit ex inficmitate] dari non potest puerperis 
antc partum, quamvis hie timeatur futurus periculus.’’ a? ANG 
is true that pregnancy was intended to be only a physiological, 
and not a pathological, condition. But whether it ordinarily is 
only physiological is quite another question. However, even 
though it be pathological, a woman is not in danger of death 
therefrom, and for this reason at least she is not capable of 
Extreme Unction. 

Genicot mentions in his Casus Conscientiae the case of a 
priest called to anoint a pregnant woman who had been told by 
her physician that her every parturition would be dangerous. 
This is his solution: 


‘‘Immerito [sacerdos inunxit eam], si partus et periculum tan- 
tum praevidentur. Extrema enim Unctio, saltem regulariter, in 
praesentibus tantum periculis posito danda est. Saepe etiam medici, 
talia pericula in singulis partubus praecinentes, id tantum inten- 
dunt: ob anatomicam mulieris conformationem aliasve internas 
causas, facile eas insurgere posse circumstantias quae verum peri- 
culum creent. Hoc igitur immerito semper tanquam praesens habere- 
tur.’ 7250 


II. The second case is somewhat more difficult to settle. 
When a woman in child-birth is suffermg only from the common 
pains and dolors of that solemn time when a man is brought into 
the world, she may not, in the opinion of many theologians, be 
either validly or licitly anointed. They declare that such a dan- 
ger of death is not a danger from sickness. The woman is in a 
normal, not an abnormal state, and consequently she cannot be 
said to be ‘‘sick’’ in the sense in which St. James used the term. 
St. Charles Borromeo inserted an enactment of this sort in the 
legislation of the Fourth Council of Milan: ‘‘Parochus Extremuae 
Uncetionis sacramentum ...ne ministret ...mulieribus in partu 


249 De Sac. Ext. Unct., N. 8, p. 52. 

250 Casus Conc., casus 885, II; cf. also Benedict XIV, De Syn. Dioo., 1. 8, 
ce. 5,n. 1; Noldin, De Sac., 443 b; Sebastiani, Swmm. Th. M., n. 510; 
Arregui, Summ. Th. M., n. 666. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 175 
and Repetition 


laborantibus.’’ 7°! Similarly Coneina,*°? Bonacina,”?** Naldus,?°4 
St. Alphonsus,?°> Baruffaldo,?°* Seavini,?°* Aertnys,?°® Kon- 
ings,25® Gury-Ferreres,*®° Tanquerey °°! and Augustine 7** hold 
that women in danger of death from the common puerperal pains 
are not valid subjects of this sacrament. 

Other authors hold that if a woman is actually dying in 
parturition, even though she is suffering only the normal pains, 
she may receive Extreme Unction. Thus, de Lugo,?® Perin,?® 
Petrus Dens,?® Falise,?°* Kenrick,?** Genicot 26° and Berardi °° 
are among those who admit the legality of this procedure. These 
men contend that a true sickness has arisen from the difficulty 
of parturition, and that the danger of death arises principally 
from this sickness and not from the parturition. Parturition, 
then, is not a sickness, but it induces a sickness which, in turn, 
brings with it a danger of death.?“° Thus the Manual of the 
Church of Cambrai*”! directed the administration of Extreme 
Unction to women ‘‘in partu deficientibus.”’ 

All these theologians take for granted that parturition is a 
thing physiological and not pathological. Yet when we look 
into the medical world, we discover a host of authorities pro- 
testing against this view of pregnancy and parturition. De 
Lee, professor of Obstetrics at Northwestern University, sums 





251 Pars II Constitutionum, cap. ‘‘Quae pertinent ad Extremam Une- 
tionem,’’ apud Acta Ecclesiae Mediol., t. I, p. 147. 

252 Theologia Christiana, t. X, lib. I, de Sac. Eat. Unct., c. 4, n. 6. 

253 De Sacramentis, disp. 7, q. unic., punct. 4-5, n. 6. 

254 Summa, verb. ‘‘ Extrema Unctio,’’ n. 5. 

255 Th. M., VI, 713, dub. 3. 

256 Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., t. I, tit. 27, n. 77. 

257 Th. M., III, 440. 

258 Th. M., II, 336. 

259 Th. M., n. 1508, q. 3. 

260 Casus Consc., t. II, n. 805. 

Ze th. 1, itis 153. (a). 

262 A Commentary, IV, p. 402. 

263 De Sac. in Gen., c. 21, n. 5. 

264 Tract. de Ext. Unct., art. II, quaeres 3. 

265 De Sac. Ext. Unct., N. 8, p. 52. 

266 Let. Pract. Comp., sec. V, ¢. 5, n. 2. 

267 Th. M., Ill, de Eat. Unct., n. 19. 

268 Casus Consc., casus 885, IT. 

269 Prax. Conf., n. 5000. 

270 Cf. Diana, Op. Coord., t. II, tr. IV, res. 49. 

271 Cf. Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 313. 


176 Extreme Unctwion 


these up very succinctly: 
‘‘Mariceau epigrammatically called pregnancy a disease of nine 


months duration. Sir James Y. Simpson said that parturition is 
always physiologic in its object, but not in some of the phenomena 
and peculiarities which attend upon it in civilized life. Engleman, 
after comparing the labors of primitive and civilized peoples, says 
that a simple natural labor is no longer possible, and, further, ‘the 
parturient suffers under the continuance of the old prejudice that 
labor is a physiologic act.’ Kehrer said that there was a sharp line 
between physiologic and pathologic pregnancy. J. O. Polak in 1910 
said that parturition is rapidly becoming a pathologic phenomenon. 
F. S. Newell says that we must realize that ‘something has gone 
wrong with this normal physiologic process’ or that present methods 
are not efficacious. E. P. Davis calls the statement that labor is a 
physiologic process a half-truth. Schwarz, of St. Louis, says, ‘tradi- 
tion and ignorance are alike combined in spreading the fable that 
child-bearing is a physiologic process.’ Moran, of Washington, asks 
for a ‘nation-wide propaganda to teach the laity that the long- 
cherished fallacy that pregnancy and labor are physiologic condi- 
tions should be abandoned.’ ’’272 


It can be seen very easily that this array of authority is at 
least sufficient to constitute the legitimacy of anointing in every 
case when a woman in child-birth is placed, even from the ordi- 
nary pains and common sorrows, in a prudent and probable dan- 
ger of death. If her condition is pathological—and there is 
great likelihood that it is—the unction should be given without 
scruple. If there is a doubt, conditional administration should 
be made. 

Vermeersch 7"% evidently is of this opinion for he says very 
simply ‘‘Morbo autem assimilatur ... partus.’’ 

III. The third case to be considered, namely, that of a 
woman in danger of death from extraordinary circumstances 
of parturition can be dismissed very simply. Such a one has 
surely a pathologic condition, for the extraordinary dolors con- 
stitute a true sickness and induce a danger of death ‘‘ex morbo.’’ 
Thus Capellman writes: ‘‘Parturientibus igitur extrema unc- 
tio tum solum conferri licite potest, si in proximo vitae periculo, 





272 The Principles and Practice of Obstetrics, introduction, p. xv. Cf. also 
Ballantyne, ‘‘The Nature of Pregnancy’’—Brit. Med. Jour., Feb. 
1914, p. 354; Davis, in Jour. Amer. Med. Ass’n, July 6, 1912; 
Engleman, Amer. System of Obstetrics, vol. I, pp. 24 and 64; J. F. 
Moran, in Jour. Amer. Med. Ass’n, Jan. 9, 1915, p. 126; Simpson, 
Collected Essays, vol. II, p. 123. 

273 Th. M., III, 660. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 177 
and Repetition 


in articulo mortis articulo mortis versantur, v. g., si vehementi 
sanguinis profluvio, interna laceratione, spasmis eclampticis, 
ect., status vitae periculosus adducatur.’’ °74 

Such extraordinary circumstances may result from the 
difficulty of parturition,?”° from the fact that the woman ‘‘labo- 
rat extraordinaris et lethalibus doloribus’’ *“° or from the fact 
that it is necessary to extricate the fetus.2*" It is clear in every 
ease that the extraordinary circumstances are causing the dan- 
ger, and thus making the patients valid and licit recipients of 
the anointments. 

With regard to the extraction of the fetus, it is to be noted 
that unction is permitted only when the fetus is actually en- 
dangering the life of the mother at the time of the bestowal 
of the sacrament. In such a contingency the mother should be 
anointed before the operation. If, however, it is simply fore- 
seen that the mother’s life will be imperilled by a parturition, 
and the operation is done to extract the fetus after viability in 
order to forestall this dangerous condition, Extreme Uncetion is 
not allowable before the operation; for the fetus has not yet 
endangered the woman’s life. As will be seen in the discussion 
of anointings before operations, the administration of Extreme 
Unction cannot be made to one in danger of death only from 
the surgeun’s knife. 

The question of anointing before surgical operations has 
four different phases: 


1. When a man, in danger of death from sickness, con- 
sents to undergo an operation whose outcome is uncertain. 

2. When a man, in danger of death from sickness, con- 
sents to undergo an operation which will, with moral cer- 
tainty, accomplish his recovery. 

3. When a man, somewhat sick but not in danger of 
death as yet, consents to undergo an operation which is of 
itself serious and will put him in danger of death. 





274 Med. Pastor., p. 127; Cf. also St. Alphonsus, Th. M., VI, 713, dub. 
3; Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 422; Scavini, Th. M., ITI, 440; 
Gobat, Moralium, Tr. VIII, n. 845; Baruffaldo, Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., 
til, titacs, 0.°79> Tanquerey, 2h. D., 117, 783° (a). 

275 Genicot-Salsmans, l.c.; Bucceroni, Inst. Th. M., P. II, vol. III, n. 871. 

276 Th. M., n. 1508, q. 3. 

277 Elbel-Bierbaum, Th. M., Conf. X, n. 230; LaCroix, Th. M., VI, 2108. 


178 Extreme Unction 


4. When a man is not sick at all, yet who undergoes 
a severe and serious operation. 


I. The first case is very easily solved. The patient is in 
danger of death from an intrinsic cause, viz., his sickness, and 
is a valid and lawful recipient of Extreme Unction for that rea- 
son alone. The fact that he may probably be relieved by the 
operation does not constitute a sufficient reason for denying him 
this sacrament. The means toward recovery that he is adopting 
does not remove the element of danger from his disease. 


II. The second case considers a man in actual danger of 
death from sickness, yet consenting to use a means which will 
restore (in the opinion of trustworthy and skilled physicians ) 
his health with moral certainty. An instance of this kind would 
be that of a man suffocating from an obstruction of the wind- 
pipe, the removal of which would relieve the condition and 
immediately restore health. 


In the first place, it must be noted that if he does not 
consent to undergo such an operation, he is certainly a valid 
subject of the sacrament. Moreover, nobody is obliged to sub- 
mit himself to such extraordinary procedure in order to regain 
health.278 Hence if such a patient refuses to resort to the knife 
of the surgeon, he is not to be denied Extreme Unction. 


If, however, the subject consents to undergo the operation, 
theologians dispute about his capability to receive the holy oils. 
Kern thinks such an administration absolutely invalid: 


‘¢Simulae autem consentit consilio medicorum, mea quidem sen- 
tentia se constituit inhabilem, qui sacri mysterii particeps fiat. Eo 
ipso enim, quod voluntate acceptat medium, cum quo certa resti- 
tutio sanitatis conjungitur, morbo suo rationem periculi adimit, 
omnem fundatum timorem mortis excutit et incapax fit illius con- 
fortationis, quae est sacramenti effectus principalis.’’279 


Vermeersch-Creusen thinks such procedure at least illicit: 


‘‘Tilicita saltem fuerit ministratio facta infirmo consentienti 
, 


in securum sealpelli usum, quo omne periculum ex morbo quem nunc 
habet removebitur. ’’280 





278 Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., I, 364. 
279 Tract. de Extr. Unct., p. 299. 
280 Fypit., II, 225. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration eg 
and Repetition 


The author of the article on ‘‘Extreme Unction’’ in the 
Catholic Encyclopedia mentions this question and states that 
the arguments of Kern are ‘‘by no means convineing.’’ Quinn 28! 
takes direct issue with Kern’s contention. ‘‘We must confess,’’ 
he writes, ‘‘our inability to see how the danger of death which 
is present ex hypothesi is fundamentally changed when one 
makes up his mind to undergo an operation which will (almost 
certainly, it is assumed) cure him. If we suppose the opera- 
tion to be dangerous, Fr. Kern would have no difficulty in al- 
lowing the sacrament to be administered. It would seem more 
correct to hold that the proximity of danger which is about to 
come from an outside source does not affect the situation ; if the 
sick person is a proper subject at all, it is because of his actual 
sickness. ”’ 

Truly it is hard to see how a man can be refused unction be- 
cause of a return to health through extrinsic means, if he can- 
not be anointed when the presence of an extrinsic danger im- 
perils his ife. The question of anointing considers the intrin- 
sic conditions of the patient. They determine his receptibility 
of this sacrament. Hence, when he seeks a return to health thru 
an extrinsic way, it shauld have no influence upon his status as 
a valid recipient. De facto he is in danger of death from his 
sickness; he experiences that depression of soul and spiritual 
torpor as other people in the same condition. He is capable, 
therefore, of that spiritual alleviation and comfort which other 
sick people need in such a state. Consequently, he is capable 
of the primary effect of the unction; and there are no good 
grounds for refusing it. 

This is confirmed by other theologians who make no dis- 
tinction in their instructions as to administration of the sacra- 
ment prior to operations. All are found to allow a bestowal 
of the oil in every case where the subject labors under a seri- 
ous disease and is put thereby in danger of death. 

Practically, at least a conditional administration should 
be made in these circumstances. If, however, by any mis- 
chance the patient begins to die subsequent to the operation 
(as might occur when, contrary to expectation, a serious peril 


281 Some Aspects of the Dogma of Extreme Unction, p. 120. 


180 Extreme Unction 


arises from the effect of the operation), a second conditional 
administration should be made. This is evidently the safer 
procedure, for it safeguards the welfare of the sick man as 
well as the sanctity of the sacrament. 

Ill. The third and fourth cases can be answered together. 
The former considers the case of a man somewhat sick, even 
seriously, but not as yet in danger of death, who is about to 
undergo a serious surgical operation. This oceurs when, e. g., 
a man is afflicted with a growth which has not yet developed 
sufficiently to place him in danger of death, yet, if left undis- 
turbed, will eventually attain such a proportion. To forestall 
this would be the purpose of the operation. Another case is 
that of chronic appendicitis. Per se the condition is not dan- 
gerous, but if not removed, its sequelae are very perilous. Com- 
plications can result from the presence of fecal matter or of a 
foreign body (such as a grape seed) in the appendix. Even- 
tually this would cause an ulceration which would terminate in a 
rupture. Peritonitis often follows this breaking of the appen- 
dix, and the life of the patient is then imminently imperilled. 
To prevent all these sequelae, medical men advise an opportune 
operation—and this falls under the case that is being consid- 
ered. 

The fourth case occurs when a healthy man submits to a 
blood transfusion which may endanger his life—at least, prob- 
ably. Attempts by surgery to correct deformities of the body 
are likewise good examples, for such operations (e. g., the 
attempt to reset a dislocated hip) are, at times, extremely dan- 
gerous to the patient. 

From the principles we have applied hitherto, it can be 
seen that in neither case are the essential conditions in the 
subject verified. To receive Extreme Unction validly, a man 
must be seriously sick, and in danger of death from the sick- 
ness. Yet the surgeon’s scalpel is as much extrinsic as the 
hangman’s rope or the electrocutioner’s switch. Until the knife 
has actually cut the man, there is no internal danger. Hence the 
Unetion of such a man prior to the operation is in no way 
justifiable. 

This is one of the instances when a man cannot receive 
Extreme Unction while in possession of his senses (unless, of 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 181 
and Repetition 


course, a local anesthetic has been employed). The canon 
demanding such an opportune administration presupposes in 
the subject the existence of all other conditions requisite for 
valid reception. Otherwise the time must be awaited until all 
such conditions are verified, however unfortunate the admin- 
istration to an unconscious man may be. Better is it to have 
the sacrament when unconscious than not at all—and an admin- 
istration of such a kind before operation would be positively 
null. At the moment of the unction the subject is not in dan- 
ger of death ab mtrinseco and may not even be grievously 
sick. Hence he has not the depression of soul against which 
the principal effect is aimed. Being incapable of receiving the 
principal effect, he is incapable of receiving the sacrament. 


No author allows the administration of Extreme Unction 
to a man, about to undergo a surgical operation who will be 
put into danger of death from the operation alone, no matter 
whether the operation itself constitutes the whole danger of 
death or whether an intrinsic condition, not of itself danger- 
ous, but coupled with the operation will embody the peril. 
Hear a few. Thus Capellman: 


‘* Ante mortiferam aliquam operationem tum solum licet sacram 
unctionem administrare, si morbus ille, qui operationem exigit, ipse 
per se vitae periculum secum fert, v. g., in sectione caesarea, quum 
partus alia ratione fieri nullatenus possit. Quodsi infirmitas per se 
non est mortifera, Sanctam Unctionem administrare non licet ante 
operationem quamvis mortiferam, quae ad curandum morbum insti- 
tuenda est. Exempli causa, si propter malignum tumorem, qui in 
posterum quidem, sed non statim vitae periculosus sit, gravis et 
mortifera operatio facienda esset, illud vitae periculum, quod in 
ipsa operatione oriretur, non directe ex morbo proveniret, sed opera- 
tione demum productum vel proprium effectum esset, quare tum 8, 
Unctionem conferre non liceret,’’282 


Hanley: 


‘‘Some authorities claim that a person who is slightly indis- 
posed can be validly anointed, provided he will die during the 
operation. This is not, I believe, in accordance with the principles 
of theology.’ ’283 


282 Med. Past., p. 127. 
283 Treatise on Sac. Ext. Unct., p. 34. 


182 Extreme Unction 


Genicot-Salsmans: 


‘‘Sequitur perperam conferri iis qui periculosam operationem 
chirurgicam subituri sunt, nisi jam antea ex infirmitate pericliten- 
tur,’ 7284 


Similar quotations can be made from Arregui,?** Seavini,"*° 
Lehmkuhl.287 D’Annibale,285 Berardi,?8° Reuter,?9° Noldin**? and 
’ ? ? 
Sebastiani.222 Finally Vermeersch-Creusen notes: 


‘Qui manus chirurgi passuri plerumque, jam actu, interno 
mortis periculo sunt obnoxii, ita ut jam ante scalpelli usum ungi 
possunt, Si tamen quis corpore sanus periculosum scalpelli usum 
subiturus sit, v. g., ad deformitatem corrigendam, non possit ungi 
antequam ipse usus scalpelli periculum internae rationis induxe- 
rit.’ ’293 


Hence a priest is to prepare a man in these cases by Pen- 
ance, if necessary, and by Viaticum, which may be given in 
extrinsic dangers of death. The oils, however, should not be 
applied until such notice that the patient is in danger of death 
from the actual cutting.2®* This, indeed, may be very incon- 
venient—and in many hospitals the authorities may not acqui- 
esce to the incursions of the priest into the operating room. 
Such visits will not be so very frequent aS may be imagined, 
however. Rarely will emergencies of so great urgency arise. 
At any rate, it is worse than useless to apply, either out of mis- 
taken zeal for souls or for a mistaken leaning towards one’s 
own comfort, the holy oils to the sick man before such an in- 
trinsic danger is induced. The administration is nullified, the 
sacrament profaned and its effects frustrated. 


It follows a fortiori from this that a man cannot be given 
Extreme Unction merely because he is about to receive an 


284 Inst. Th. M., II, 422. 

285 Summ. Th. M., nu. 666. 

286 Th. M., III, 440. 

287 The M., LL, (22. 

288 Summ. Th. M., III, 417, footnote 18. 

289 Prax. Conf., n. 5000; De Parocho, n. 294. 
290 Reuter-Lehmkuhl-Umberg, Neo-Conf., n. 225. 
291 De Sac., 443 b. 

292 Summ. Th. M., n. 510. 

293 Hpit., I, 225. 

294 Cf. Konings, Th. M., n. 1508, quaeres 3 ad b, cum notula 51. 





>» > 





ee ee et ee eee oe ee oe a ee. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 183 
and Repetition 


anesthetic before his operation. If in individual instances 
there is a danger to the patient from the reception of ether, 
the priest must wait until the ether has actually been admin- 
istered. Not only does this apply to patients who are well, but 
to those who are afflicted with a physical condition which might 
be aggravated by the administration of the anaesthetic. Hence 
aman with a heavy cold or with a ecardiae condition who is not 
per se in danger of death therefrom, can only be anointed after 
the application of the anesthetic. 

It is to be remembered that physicians will not administer, 
as a rule, ether or chloroform if there will be any danger to 
the patient. Consequently the mere inhalation of ether, given 
by order of a skilled physician, will not of itself justify the 
administration of Unction, even after the anesthetic has been 
applied. In this regard Hanley says simply: ‘‘A person cannot 
be validly anointed merely because he is under the influence of 
ether.*°° Lehmkuhl discusses the action of a certain priest 
(Fridericus who anointed every patient immediately after the 
administration of the anesthetic prior to the operation, ‘‘cum 
aliquoties accidsset ut ejusmodi homines e narcosi non evigila- 
rent.’’ In his decision he writes: 


‘“Narcosis chloriformica inducta, nisi alia afflicta valetudo ac- 
cedat, morale periculum mortis non censetur constituere. Quare nisi 
medicus judicaverit subesse periculum in casu singulari, Fridericus 
debuit non jam dare unctionem, utpote quae invalida vel dubie valida 
esset ac proin postea, cum de periculo constaret iteranda. Quam 
primum vero per ipsam operationem periculum inductum est, sane 
tempus est ministrandae unctionis, ne forte in operatione homo 
decedat sacramento non munitus; de qua re ante narcosin aegrotus 
moendus est.’ ’296 


Hence in these cases the sick man should be told before 
the operation that Extreme Unction cannot be given to him 
then, but that it will be conferred if any danger does arise. 
He should be also spurred to make a firm intention of co-operat- 
ing with its sacramental graces, an action which reveals to the 
priest explicitly that the subject has the correct intentions in 
this matter. 


295 Treatise on the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, p. 49. 
296 Casus Consc., II, cas. 195, p. 384. 





184 Extreme Uncttion 


Ob senium. 

Cicero has said succinetly: ‘‘Senectus ipsa morbus est.’’ 
And thus it has been regarded down all the ages of the Chris- 
tian era in connection with the administration of Extreme Une- 
tion. It is, of course, intrinsic in its origin; and when it has 
advanced so much as to induce a danger of death, it verifies the 
conditions required for valid bestowal.?%” 

The Sixth Council of Beneventano, held in 1875, pre- 
scribed: ‘‘Senibus autem datur qui moriuntur etiam sine aliqua 
infirmitate, quia defectus naturae reputatur in eis pro actuali 
infirmitate.’’ 298 In similar fashion Benedict XIV wrote: ‘‘Con- 
ceditur senibus, qui prae decrepita aetate, licet nulla alia spe- 
ciali afficiantur aegritudine, in dies morituri creduntur; ipsa 
enim gravis et annosa senectus infirmitas est quae interiora 
vitae organa labefactat, et mox ducit ad interitum.’’ 7°? Trom- 
bellio gives as the reason why unction of old men is allowed: 
‘‘Nam his imminet periculum improvisae mortis et subitae suf- 
focationis.’’ °° 


Old age commences with the sixtieth year. This is the 
opinion of Augustine®! and is confirmed by Canon 1254, 2, 
which exempts from the obligation of fasting all who have 
attained that age. Yet years alone do not make old age a 
‘‘siekness.’’ All authors demand that there be a marked de- 
cline in the physical forces of an old person before he becomes 
a fit subject of the sacrament. Thus the Roman Ritual, before 
its latest revision, denoted an advance to such a degree of 
weakness that the old men seem ‘‘in diem morituri,’’ 9°? before 
Unction was to be given. Augustine®®? insists on the presence 
of some signs of the approaching dissolution, such as fainting 
or sinking-spells. 


There is, however, no need to wait until death is actually 
imminent. The sacrament is validly and licitly given when 


297 Cf. Dens. Tract de Ext. Unct., N. 8, p. 52. 

298 Tit. 8, cap. 1; ef. Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 311. 

299 De Syn. Dioc., lib. 8, ¢. 5, n. 2. 

300 De Ext. Unct., disp. X, ce. I, q. 2, n. ITI. 

301 4 Commentary, IV, 402. 

802 Tit. V, ¢. 1, n. 5 (edit. 1913). Cf. St. Charles—IV Prov. Conc. Medio- 
lanen., cap. ‘‘Quae pertinent ad Extremam Unctionem,’’ apud Acta 

PE Eccl. Mediolanen., t. I, pars I, p. 147. 
a 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 185 
and Repetition 


a man is in a prudently probable danger of death arising from 
the weaknesses which now afflict him. As Lehmkuhl says, ‘‘suf- 
ficit et requiritur probabile periculum ne brevi vita finiatur: 
nullatenus requiritur ut mors jam immineat, aut ut instantis 
mortis periculum adsit ... Sufficit . . . morbi ex natura sua 
diuturni status in quo juste timeri ne brevi vita finiatur. Se- 
nectutis talis condicio ut vires in dies videantur.’’ 3° 


II. REQUISITES FOR REPETITION, 


2. “In eadem infirmitate hoc sacramentum iterari non potest, 
mist infirmus, post susceptam unctionem convaluerit et in 
aliud discrimen inciderit.’’ 

The question of the valid repetition of Extreme Unction in 
the same danger of death has already been treated in the first 
chapter.°°° Here only the legality of the procedure need be 
considered. 

Until the year 1000 little is known about the repetition of 
the sacrament.?°® In 1093, Godfried, the abbot of Vindocensis, 
sought the opinion of his learned contemporary, St. Yves, bishop 
of Chartres, in regard to the custom of reanointing then in 
vogue in Benedictine monasteries. He felt that to reanoint un- 
der any circumstances, even in distinct sicknesses, was alto- 
gether inadmissible. ‘‘In hoc,’’ he wrote,®°? ‘‘non mediocriter 
errant, quod Unctionem Infirmorum, cum a Sancta Catholica 
et Apostolica Sede sacramentum vocetur, et cum nullum sacra- 
mentum iterari debeat, iterandum putant.’’ The reply of St. 
Yves evidences a hearty concurrence in the reasoning of his 
friend: ‘‘Unctionem infirmorum non aestimo esse repetendam, 
quia sicut ipse asseruisti . . . genus est sacramenti, qui autem 
sacramenta Christi et Ecclesiae repetit, injuriam ipsis sacra- 
mentis ingerit.’’ 38 

About the same time the abbot, Theobald, of the Monastery 
of St. Columba in the city of Sens questioned Peter the Vener- 
able (also known as Peter of Montbossier), the abbot of Cluny, 





804 Th. M., II, 722. 

305 Cf. supra, chap. I, sec. VI, n. 3, p. 
806 Cf. Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 5 
307 M. P. L., 157, 87-88. 

308 M. P. L., 157, 88. 


186 Extreme Unction 


‘eur unctio infirmorum sola, hoe apud Cluniacum solummodo, 
reiteretur.’’? Peter’s reply is magnificent vindication of the 
Benedictine practice. After overturning the arguments of the 
adversaries of the practice, he gives in very convincing fashion 
the reasons in its favor. Thus in part he writes: 


‘‘Nam si aeger post semel redditam sanitatem nunquam in 
morbum incideret; si nunquam post primam unctionem in peccata 
corrueret, fateor quod nunquam deinceps unctionem jam dictam 
iterari fas esset. Quod si rursum infirmatus fuerit, si rursum pecca- 
verit, quae ratio, ut rursum ei allevietur, ut ei peccata dimittantur, 
denuo eum inungi prohibebit? Nonne et apostolus hoc se indicat 
velle, ut quoties quis infirmatus fuerit, toties inungatur? Nam quid 
aliud sonant verba illa illius: ‘Infirmatur quis in vobis? Inducat 
presbyteros Ecclesiae?’ Non enim ait: ‘Infirmatur quis in vobis, 
inducat presbyteros semel,’ sed nulla mentione unius, binae vel ternae 
unctionis facta jubet nullo praefixo numero induci ad aegrum presby- 
teros eccelesiae, fidei orationem fieri, ad alleviationem et peccatorum 
remissionem eum oleo sacro inungi. Non igitur mihi videtur dicen- 
dum esse, quod apostolus non dixit addendum esse, quod ipse non 
séripsit, sentiendum quod ipse, ut verba ejus indicant, non sensit.’’809 


Peter’s letter had the happy effect of destroying the belief 
which allowed Unction to be given only once in a person’s life- 
time. The statements made by Ciacconius*!® and Ughellius,*** 
biographers of Pius II, to the effect that there were vehement 
disputes in Rome whether the sick Pontiff was capable of Unce- 
tion as he approached death, since he had already been anointed 
when he was stricken with a plague a few years previous, are 
regarded as fabulous and untrue by Benedict XIV *1* and Cata- 
lano.243 Other biographies of the Pope make no mention of 
such dispute, although they contain minute accounts of the 





309 Hpp., 1. 5, ep. 7—M. P. L., 189, 392-93. It must be noted that such a 
custom was not confined to Cluny. Peter Cantor of Paris and 
Cardinal Robert de Coreceon testify to the existence of a similar 
practice among the Cistercians of Clairvaux (Cf. Launoi, Op. Omnia, 
t. I, p. 549 sqq.). Similarly, the monks of Hirksau allowed repeti- 
tion of the anointing provided that at least three years had elapsed 
since the previous Unction (Cf. Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 316.) 

310 Vita S. Pui, tom. II, p. 1005. 

311 Italia Sacra, tom. II, p. 553. 

812 De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, « 8, n. 3. 

813 Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 316. 

314 Cf. Biographies written by Campano, apud Muratori, Rev. Ital. Script., 
III, ii, 967-92; and Commentaries of Cardinal Papiensis—quoted 
by Catalano, l.c. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 187 
and Repetition 


days immediately preceding his death.*'* Moreover by the 
middle of the fifteenth century, when Pius reigned, theologians 
and synods had generally allowed a re-administration of the 
unction. | 

From the year 1130 to the year 1350 it was generally held 
that the sacrament might be repeated under certain circum- 
stances. The old opinion had not altogether been eradicated, 
as Alanus Porretanus notes: ‘‘Sunt qui dicunt de hoe sacra- 
mento quod iterari non possit, siceut nec Baptismus; sed quia 
sacramentum paenitentiae est, et paenitentia iterari potest, pro- 
babile est hoc sacramentum iterari posse.’’ 31° 

The great writers, however—Peter Lombard,*!® William of 
Auxerre,?17 Thomas Aquinas,®!8 Hugh of St. Victor #19 and St. 
Bonaventure 32°—all maintained the reiterability of Extreme 
Unction in different and distinct danger of death, even though 
occurring in one and the same sickness. Albertus Magnus**? 
demanded an interval of a year between unctions in protracted 
illnesses, regardless of whether the man lapsed more than once 
into a dangerous state. Though scoffed at, after a fashion, by 
St. Bonaventure,®?* who remarked the absurdity of regulating 
the sacraments by the stars, he nevertheless obtained consid- 
erable adherence to his opinion, not alone among his contem- 
poraries, but also and especially in later writers.°** 

Loeal legislation asserted the liceity of repetition. Richard 
Poore stated in nis Constitutions: ‘‘Moneant sacerdotes frequen- 
ter populum licite iterari posse: scilicet in qualibet gravi infir- 
mitate de qua metus imminet mortis.’’®** The Synod of Bay- 
eux,®2> celebrated in 1300, insisted likewise that the reiterability 
of the sacrament be inculcated in the minds of the people. 


315 Maaima Theologiae, n. xciii—cf. Launoi, Op. cit., p. 550. 
316 Lib. IV Sent., dist. xxiii— M. P. L., 192, 899. 

317 Summa Aurea, lib. 4, tr. 7, ¢. 2. 

318 Suppl. q. 33, a. 1-et 2. 

319 De Sacramentis, p. XV, ¢. 3. 
320 Comm. in IV lib. Sent., d. xxiii, a. 2, q. 4. 

321 Comm. in lib. quart. Sent., d. xxiii, a. 21. 

322 Lic. 

323 Cf. Hugo of Salisburg, inter Opera B. Alberts, t. 34, p. 232. 
324 Harduin VII, 107. 

825 Harduin, VII, 1237. 


188 Extreme Unction 


William, the bishop of Paris, in his book on the Sacra- 
ments,32° taught the lawfulness of repeated Unction not only 
in different sicknesses but also in each danger of death in the 
same sickness. 

Between 1350 and the Council of Trent the permissibility 
of repetition was held by all. The great influence of Albert 
and Thomas made itself plain in two widely divergent schools 
of thought in the matter of procedure in repeating the sacra- 
ment. Those who followed Thomas held that it was to be re- 
peated in every danger of death in lingering diseases. Albert’s 
followers contended that in these cases once a year was the 
extent of the frequency of repetition. Some extremists**’ taught 
that the sacrament could not be given within a year from its 
previous bestowal, even in a different sickness. 

Synodal legislation reveals traces of this division of thought. 
Thus the allowability of reanointing was declared by the Sixth 
Provineial Council of Beneventano with these words: 


‘‘Et quia de iteratione fuerunt dubitationes, ideo dicimus 
secundum communem opinionem, quod quaedam sunt infirmitates non 
diuturnae: unde si eis datur hoc sacramentum tune cum homo ad 
statum illum pervenerit, quo est in periculo mortis, non recedit a 
statu illo, nisi infirmitate curata, et ita iterum non debet inungi. 
Sed si recidivum patiatur, erit alia infirmitas, et ita iterum poterit 
inungi. Quaedam vere sunt aegritudines diurnae, ut ethica et hydro- 
pisis, etc., in talibus non debet fieri inunctio nisi quando videntur 
inducere mortis periculum. Si homo illud evadat, eadem infirmitate 
durante, et iterum ad simile periculum per infirmitatem reducatur, 
potest iterum inungi, quia quasi erit alius status infirmitatis.’’328 


In concordance with this enactment are the decrees of the 
Synods of Langres (1404), Chartres (1526) and Sens (1524),??9 
as well as the diocesan statutes of Daniel, bishop of Nantes, 
Robert, bishop of Cambrai (1550), Maximilian, bishop of Cam- 
brai (1567), Stephen Poncherius, bishop of Paris (1550) and 


326 De Septem Sacramentis, ec. 23—Cf. Trombellio, De Sac. Ext. Unct., 
vol. ITI, diss; XI, ns ix; p91. 

827 Peter Cantor (Summa, c. 132—quoted by Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 
310) forbade repetition during that time; as also an ancient song: 
‘‘Nonnisi semel in mense tantum communicet aeger. Hie idem solo 
Hon bis aot: in anno’’ (Martene, De Antig. Rit. Eccl., 1. I, ¢. 7, 
oe Ee shag 

828 Tit. 8, c. 1—Cf. Trombellio, De Ext. Unct., vol. III, diss. XIII, n. 8. 

829 Natalis Alexander, Th. D. et M., lib. II, ec. 5, reg. 19. 


Requisites in the Subject for Admimstration 189 
and Repetition 


later archbishop of Sens (1574), and Louis, bishop of Char- 
tres (1576).°2° Similarly the manuals of many individual 
churches contained a rubric permitting renewal of the sacra- 
ment in a diverse danger of death.*#! 

The Synod of Ypres, held in the beginning of the sixteenth 
century, explicitly condemned the opinion holding the inadmissi- 
bility of repeated Unction for a year after a bestowal of the 
sacrament: 

‘‘Proinde consuetudinem, secundum quam non consuevit hoc 


sacramentum intra annum secundo suscipi, etiamsi altera gravis ob- 
veniat infirmitas, tanquam noxiam abrogemus.’’332 


On the other hand the power of Albertus’ teaching made 
itself apparent in the rubrics of many diocesan rituals which 
were edited shortly before the convening of the Council of 
Trent or even while it was in session. Examples of such are 
the Manualia of the Church of Chartres (1489), Périgueux 
(1509), Rheims (1504 and 1530), Clermont (1518), Autun 
(1523), Chalons-sur-Marne (1529), Mende (1530), Beauvais 
(1544), Meaux (1546), Verdun (1554), Limoges (1555) and 
frras Gl563.).5°? 

The question was settled by the Council of Trent: ‘‘Quod 
si infirmus post susceptam hane unctionem convaluerint, iterum 
hujus sacramenti, subsidio juvari poterunt, cum in aliud simile 
vitae discrimen inciderint.’’ 34 

Since that time there has been no question of the per- 
missibility of reanointing. The Catechism of the Council*® 
specifically allows a second unction in the same sickness, but in 
a distinct danger of death from that in which the former 
anointing was made. The Roman Ritual, before its latest re- 
vision, contained the rubric: ‘‘In eadem infirmitate hoe sacra- 
mentum iterari non debet, nisi diuturna sit, ut si, cum infirmus 


330 Cf. Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 552. 

331 Cf. Launoi, J.c—Manuals of the Churches of Cambrai (1552), Vienne 
(1577) Rheims (1585), Auxerre (1586), Lyons (1592), Malines 
(1598). 

332 Van Espen, Jus Eccl. Uniw., P. II, sect. I, tit. 7, n. 37. 

333 Cf. Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 553. 

834 Sess. XIV, de Ext. Unct., c. 3. 

835 De Ext. Unct., n. 11. 





190 Extreme Unction 


convaluerit, iterum in periculum mortis incidat.’’ *°° Other Rit- 
uals, edited since the Council of Trent, also direct a second 
anointing in the same sickness after the partial recovery and 
subsequent relapse of the patient.3°? 


Some synods have made very strict demands in regard to 
the verification of change of status in the disease. Thus unless 
certainty that a new danger of death was actually present they 
would not allow the repetition of the sacrament. The Manual 
of Rheims, for instance, decreed : 


‘<Denique potest hoc sacramentum iterari, et quidem in eadem 
infirmitate, quandoquidem quis est in articulo mortis, modo casus 
sit diversus, ut, qui in hydropisi, aut longa febri, postquam evasit 
periculum, rursus post aliquot menses de vita periclitatur.’’338 


In similar fashion the Synod of Namur**® did not wish a second 
administration in the same sickness ‘‘nisi peritorum judicio 
status morbi mutatus fuerit.’’ 


Other synods caught the spirit of Trent in the matter and 
legislated in a milder mode. The Council of Salerno (1579) 
enunelates the practice followed even today: ‘‘In eadem infir- 
mitate nonnisi semel Sacra Unectio adhibeatur; nisi illa longe 
existente, pluries vitae periculum, pluriesque salutis spes insur- 
geret.’’ 34° Thus, too, St. Charles wrote in his ‘‘Instructiones :’’ 


‘‘Intelliget parochus infirmum, quamdiu in eadem aegrotatione 
et in eodem mortis periculo versatur, semel tantum esse Extrema 
Unctione liniendum. Quod si unctione suscepta convaluerit, quoties 
postea vitae discrimen inciderit, toties hoe sacramentum et adhibe- 
bitur. Item in morbis quibusdam diuturnis, puta in hydropisi, si ob 
mortem impendentem quis unctus fuerit et evaserit, deinde ex eodem 
morbo in alium similem casum et periculum mortis inciderit, rursus 
etiam ungi debebit.’ 7341 


336 Tit. V, c. 1, n. 14—edit. 1913. 

337 Cf. e. g., Manuale Salisburgense (p. 324—Cf. Trombellio, De Eat. 
Unctione, dis. XIII, n. 8): ‘‘Hoe vero sacramentum in eodem 
homine iterari potest, non in variis solum, sed in eodem etiam morbo, 
cum diversa vitae pericula post dierum aliquot intervalla impendent, 
ut si nune remittente, nunc rursus ingravescente, morbo mors im- 
minere videatur;’’ Cf. also Rituale Cardinalis Sanctorii—apud Bene- 
dict XIV, De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, ¢. 8, n. 4. 

338 Cf. Van Espen, Jus Canon. Univ., P. II, sect. I, tit. 7, n. 36. 

339 Tit. IV, c. 8—Cf. Van Espen, 1l.c.—anno 1639. 

840 Tit. 32, c. 3—Cf. Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 317. 

841 Pars IV, Acta Eccl. Mediolan., t. I, tit. ‘‘Quoties hoe sacramento uten- 
dum est,’’ p. 604, 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 191 
and Repetition 


lence all theologians of today admit the permissibility of 
conferring Extreme Unction in each danger of death, whether 
it be that of entirely new sickness, or a second danger of the 
same sickness. Extreme Unction is a remedy against the evils 
which sick men in danger of death suffer. Consequently, as long 
as the danger and depression continue, only so long does the 
right to the supernatural graces of the sacrament remain. A 
sick man whose infirmity is no longer conjoined with a danger 
of death has no more right to the aids than a sick man whose 
sickness is not yet coupled with a danger of death. Hence, if 
a man falls again into danger of death, he needs the right to 
the spiritual aids which evanesced when he passed out of the 
periculum mortis the first time. The only way to recapture 
this right is by a second administration of the sacrament.?” 
Consequently the subject is to be anointed a second time. 

Repetition can be made as often as the dangers of death 
oceur. If it is without doubt that the first peril has been re- 
moved and the patient has recovered only to fall subsequently 
into another new danger, the repetition of the sacrament must 
be made, even though the interval of time between the unctions 
be very short. This, too, whether the second danger occur from 
the same sickness as the previous peril or from an entirely 
distinet cause. 

The cases of lingering illnesses (and, a part, old age) can 
give some difficulties to a priest, and therefore require a lengthier 
consideration. Three contingencies may occur: 


1. When the danger of death has certainly passed 
away from such a patient, and he subsequently falls into 
a second danger of death. 

2. When a man, suffering from a protracted illness, 
has but doubtfully passed from one danger of death into 
another. 

3. When it is certain that the same danger of death 
is perduring. 

I. In the first instance it is clear that the man must be 
reanointed. Noldin distinguishes between an obligation and a 


342 Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 335-6. 


192 Extreme Unction 


permissibility to reanoint. When it is a second danger of the 
same sickness the sacrament may be repeated, whereas when 
the sickness itself is an entirely distinct infirmity, the Unction 
must be conferred the second time.*4* The distinction between 
the cases is entirely unwarranted. The sick person has lost his 
title to the spiritual comfort and alleviation furnished by the 
previous Unetion. This evanesced when he passed from out 
the pale of danger. When he falls again into danger of death, 
he is as much in need of these aids as if a new sickness fell upon 
hiomn3*? 

Some theologians teach that repetition of the sacrament can 
be made when a man, already anointed in imminent danger of 
ideath, has been somewhat relieved and subsequently fallen again 
into imminent danger, even though his temporary relief did-not 
put him beyond danger even for an instant. The proponents 
of this opinion are St. Bonaventure?*® and Laymann?** among 
the older writers, and De Augustinis,*47 Prummer*4® and 
O’Kane *49 among recent authors. Indeed other authors seem 
to be speaking of the same thing when they talk of the recovery 
of a patient from danger of death. Rarely does it seem that 
they understand a convalescence to such an extent that the 
disease has temporarily lost its fatal character. This can be 
seen from the fact that the examples of such authors are con- 

sumption, tuberculosis, and dropsy, which seldom allow a re- 
covery to such an extent that a man cannot be said to be in at 
least a remote danger of death.*°° 

With regard to this opinion Kern**! takes sharp issue. He 
claims rightly that the sacrament of the Unction was instituted 
for those who are seriously sick and in danger of death, at least, 
remotely. Hence when once anointed, the efficacy of the Unction 
extends thruout the entire time that the man is in danger, no 


843 De Sac., n. 447. 

344 Op. cit., p. 338. 

345 Comm. in lib. quart. Sent., d. xxiii, a. 2, q. 4 ad 2. 

C46 he Me AL ¥s tr 8, CeO 

347 De Re Sacramentaria, Il, p. 408. 

348 Manuale Th. M., III, 582. 

349 The Rubrics, n. 877. 

350 Elbel-Bierbaum, Th. M., P. VIII, Conf., X, n. 219; Lehmkuhl, Casus 
Consc., II, 679; O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 876; Kenrick, Th. M., ITI, 
““De Ext. Unct.’’ cap. unic., n, 21. 

351 Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 337-8. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 193 
and Repetition 


matter how much his condition changes therein, provided, of 
course, that never does he pass beyond a remote danger. If, 
therefore, a consumptive is anointed when he is first declared in 
danger of death by the physicians, he receives the benefits of 
that unction thruout the entire duration of such a danger. How 
then can Extreme Unction be given in this case? If not 
invalid, it seems quite illicit. It is no escape to say that Extreme 
Unction may, but need not, be repeated within this time. 
Either the man is again in need of the efficacy of the sacrament, 
or the effects of the first unction are still perduring. If he is 
in need of the Unction, the sacrament not only may be repeated, 
but must be again conferred—and that, too, by the same obliga- 
tion in justice or charity which bound for the original admin- 
istration. If the efficacy of the first unction still perdures, then 
a repeated unction is altogether unlawful. 

Authors, however, advance some reasons in defense of this 
practice. They claim that morally a new danger is present, and 
is actually considered to be present in the common estimation 
of men. Those who have been in imminent danger and have 
recovered gradually for a notable space of time, are usually 
considered out of danger, although de facto they may not be. 
The recuperation is popularly considered to be evidence of the 
successful negotiation of the crisis. If one of these patients 
should fall again into imminent danger of death, a new danger 
is thought to have risen. Genicot goes so far as to say that this 
popular belief on the subject should be preferred to a medical 
opinionsto the contrary: ‘‘Cui vulgari existimationi inhaeren- 
dum est potius quam scientificae medicorum existimationi, in 
regula vulgo applicanda.’’ °* 

There is enough probability here to justify an administra- 
tion in such cases. The intrinsic and extrinsic bases supply a 
sufficient defense for the legality of their action. Priests who 
have convinced themselves that re-administration in the same 
danger of death is positively invalid, can take sufficient care 
of the patient’s soul by making a conditional administration. 
Even this seems hardly of obligation, for the sacrament has 
surely the efficacy it was designed to have, and this efficacy 


352 Casus Consc., cas. 889, p. 576. 


194 Extreme Unction 


continues. Moreover, who is to say when popular belief looks 
upon the old danger as passed and the new one as arrived ? 
And again, it might be difficult to show by what power the 
common estimation of men changes an essential condition in a 
subject. Suppose common estimation thought some substance 
was bread, while chemists declared scientifically that 1t was not. 
Could the fact that in the popular mind such a substance was 
bread make it valid, not to say even lawful, matter for the 
Eucharist ? 

The obligation of a pastor in this case is not strict. He is 
certainly not bound to anoint in such eases. His procedure will 
depend on the appeal which the arguments of one or the other 
opinion have for him. 

With regard to a partial recovery, whereby the patient 
is placed probably out of the danger of death, followed by a 
relapse, it may be said that Extreme Unction may be repeated 
in such a case—just as it can be given originally when there 
is a prudent fear that danger is present. In the present case 
all that is necessary would be a probable judgment that a new 
danger of death has arisen. With regard to the obligation of 
conferring the sacrament, it can hardly be said to be very 
urgent, for it is by no means certain that the man has lost the 
efficacy of the former unction.?”? 


II. The second case, wherein it is doubtful whether a man 
has recovered and lapsed again into a second danger of death, 
provides several problems which are not easy to solve. Suppose 
a patient is anointed because he is remotely in danger of death. 
He lives on for a notable period of time without much change 
of condition apparently. Or his condition may be quite vari- 
able. One day he is quite sick, the following day much relieved 
—and in this spasmodic fashion he continues for some months. 
Can Extreme Unetion be repeated upon such persons? And if 
so, how frequently ? 

To verify the word ‘‘convaluerit,’’ used by this canon, there 
must be some improvement. A mere continuance of life does 
not of itself justify a second administration.®°* Some kind of a 
recovery is required, and that recovery must continue for an 


853 Cf. Bucceroni, Inst. Th. M., vol. III, P. II, n. 871. 
354 Q’Kane, The Eubrics, n. 877. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 195 
ee, and Repetition 
appreciable length of time. Thus Noldin says: ‘‘Idem pericu- 
lum perdurare censetur, si infirmus per breve solum tempus, 
per aliquot scilicet dies, se melius habuit, nisi ex natura morbi 
aliud constet.’’ 35 Genicot °® thinks an improvement lasting 
over four or five days is not sufficient. This, too, is the opinion 
of St. Alphonsus*5? and of D’Annibale.**® 

O’Kane®*® is of the opinion that a man who lives a month 
after the conferring of Extreme Unction furnishes thereby a 
positive doubt as to his recovery. All things considered, it is 
quite hard to tell as a general rule whether or not the danger 
has actually continued during) the whole time or whether it has 
ceased to exist at any time. 

In this case theologians allow a repeated administration of 
the sacrament, and they urge priests to incline towards repeti- 
tion. Thus Van Espen: 

‘‘Discat parochus ab iteratione hujus sacramenti se non debere 
scrupulose abstinere ob periculum nullitatis sacramenti; sed duntaxat, 
ne in disciplinam jam stabilitam impingat: adeoque si dubium sit, 
num forsan morbi status ita fuerit mutatus, ut etiam juxta modernam 
disciplinam reiterari queat, magis pro reiteratione inclinandum; eo 
quod haec reiteratio conformior fit veteri Heclesiae consuetudini, tum 


quod per eam novum ipsi infirmo subsidium spirituale sperari pos- 
sit, ’ 7360 


This admonition to pastors was repeated by Benedict XIV,3* 
St. Alphonsus,?*? Kenrick,?*? Seavini,9** Gury,*® O’Kane 866 and 


Genicot.2% 





355 De Sac. n. 447. Cf. Dens, Tract. de Eat. Unct., N. 11, pp. 59-60: 
‘‘Satis non est quod morbi status parumper mutetur, v. g., aeger 
mane melius se habeat et vespere iterum pejus; quod febris una die 
remittat aut etiam cessat, altera die redeat aut augeatur; sed talis 
mutatio intercessisse debet, ut dici possit infirmum convaluisse et in 
aliud periculum incidisse.’’ Cf. also Kenrick, Th. M., Ill, ‘‘ De Eat. 


Unct.,’’ n. 21. 
356 Inst. Th. M., II, 423. 
357 Th. M., VI, 715. 
358 Summ. Th. M., III, 417, footnote 20. 
359 The Rubrics, n. 878. 
360 Jus Eccl. Univ., Pars II, sec. I, tit. 7, n. 40. 
361 De Syn. Dioc., |. 8, ¢. 8, nu. 4. 
362 Lc. 
363 Le. 
364 Th. M., III, 442. ‘ 
365 Th. M., II, 691. roy 
366 The Rubrics, n. 878. 
367 Th. M., Ii, 423. 


196 Extreme Unction 


Repetition is thus allowed on the ground that a man who 
ean live for a month without showing much change of condi- 
tion has really recovered to some extent and in the estimation 
of men a new moral danger of death has arisen. This is the 
reason commonly assigned by theologians for this practice. 
However, a curious explanation was suggested by Dr. Walter 
McDonald, Dean of the Dunboyne Establishment at Maynooth, 
to justify the present practice: 

‘¢There are but two courses open—either to give up repeating 
the sacrament in those cases of lengthened illness, or to maintain 
that the repetition is not a true repetition, as the sacrament was 
not validly administered in the first instance. The only conceivable 
reason for this latter course would be that it is only those who are 
in proximate danger of death that are capable of receiving the 
sacrament. It would remain to determine some measure of prox- 
imity; and as to this I should be prepared to accept as a working 
measure the month rule now acted on by most priests, understanding 
it in this sense, that if it is a month since the sacrament was ad- 
ministered, and there has been no amelioration, amounting to con- 
valescence, in the patient’s condition, that fact is to be regarded 
as proof sufficient that he was not in proximate danger, nor there- 
fore capable of receiving the sacrament, when it was previously 
administered. ’ 7368 


Quinn®*? commemorates this opinion but does not agree with it. 
Toner °° notes that it involves a serious breach with the tradi- 
tion of the first twelve centuries; and this for him is a strong, 
if not a fatal, objection. Indeed MeDonald’s opinion demands 
a stage of disease as acute as that demanded by the Scotists. It 
has already been shown how untenable such a view is.?7* The 
Propaganda’? did not consider such a contingency when it 
allowed the administration of the sacrament to one afflicted with 
lung trouble who would live for several months. 

Quinn 373 proffers a different explanation. The theologians 
who sanction this practice had in mind the ordinary case— 
wherein recovery occurs within a month. They did not enter 
into the question of the fluctuations of the disease; they used 


868 Trish Theological Quarterly, vol. II (1907), p. 343. 

369 Some Aspects of the Dogma of Extreme Unction, p. 133 

870 Irish Theological Quarterly, l.¢., p. 250. 

371 Cf. supra, p. 156-7; 161-5. 

872 §. GC. P. F. (C. P. pro Sin.), Feb. 20, 1801—Collectanea, n. 651. 

873 Op. cit. pp. 133-34; Cf. Irish Eccl. Record, Fifth Series, yol, XIV 
(1919), p. 485. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 197 
and Repetition 


the normal case as the basis of their instruction. Their teach- 
ing saves the minister from the difficulty of deciding whether 
a real recovery and relapse had intervened since the bestowal 
of the previous administration. Though this occasionally results 
in invalid receptions, nevertheless the principle ‘‘sacramenta 
propter homines’’ should govern, especially “‘when there is a 
question of the sacrament that is the culmination of the whole 
Christian life.’’ 


Those who hold the validity of repeated Unction in the same 
danger of death would look upon the matter in a different light. 
For them there would be no invalid administrations. Since 
persons who live a month after unction furnish a prudent and 
probable doubt that they have recovered and relapsed again 
into a new danger, repetition of the sacrament can be validly 
and licitly made. Validly, since according to their conviction, 
the sacrament can be given more than once even in the same 
danger of death; licitly, because it is quite probable that it is 
not the same danger, and therefore, the law forbidding repeti- 
tion ceases to bind (Lex dubia non obligat). 


The amount of time that must pass to give origin to such 
a doubt as to the change of status of the sick person must, as 
has been said, be a notable one. Noldin,?’* Konings,? Geni- 
eot?7® and O’Kane®™” hold that such an interval is the space of 
one month. Barbosa*?® demands a few weeks. Other theologians 
do not demand such a long time; and it must be remembered 
that Bonaventure’s remark as to the absurdity of regulating 
sacraments by the stars applies with all its force in these in- 
stances. Thus Telch®”® says that one week is a sufficient interval 
between the anointings of a consumptive, although for other 
eases he demands a month. Elbel-Bierbaum 3°° is inclined to a 
similarly generous opinion of one week. Suarez gives some 


874 De Sac., 447. 

375 Th. M., 1508, quaeres 6. 

376 Inst. Th. M., II, 423. 

877 De Off. et Pot. Par., c. 22, n. 38. 
378 The Rubrics, n. 878. 

379 Hpit. Th. M., p. 304. 

380 Th. M., Conf. X, n. 231. 


198 Extreme Unction 


very sane advice on the matter: 

‘<Constat necessarium esse status illos aegritudinis per aliquam 
diuturnam moram interrumpi, ita ut secundum communem existima- 
tionem diversi censeantur. Frivolum autem est unius anni inter- 
ruptionem postulare, quia intra illud tempus coelestium corporum, 
praesertim solis, revolutio perficitur, ut Albertus philosophari videtur ; 
quid enim hoe refert ad sacramenti necessitatem vel dignam admini- 
strationem? Alii unius mensis tempus assignant, voluntario magis 
arbitrio, quam certa ratione. Paludanus pro regula assignat, quoties 
probabile est in nova peccata venialia incidisse; juxta quam regulam 
nihil aliud expectandum videtur, nisi quod homo simpliciter dici possit 
evasisse prius periculum, ita ut medicorum et prudentum judicio 
censeatur esse liber ab illo aegritudinis statu; nam si postea iterum 
recidat, etiamsi illo medio statu brevi tempore duraverit, poterit 
iterum inungi; nam in quolibet brevi tempore timeri possunt nova 
peceata, praesertim venialia.... Etiam haec regula non est ad- 
modum certa, ideoque prudenti arbitrio hoc relinquendum est ut 
nimirum considerata diurnitate aegritudinis et statuum ejus, et in- 
terruptionis eorum inter se, practica et communi existimatione illa 
censeantur diversa pericula et status ita diversi, ut perinde se 
habeant ac si essent morbi omnino distincti.’’381 


Administration is to be made in these cases, as in other 
cases of doubt, sub conditione.382 This would follow from the 
wording of the canon, and from the likelihood that any other 
procedure would be construed as illegal. 

Practically it will be lawful for the pastor to repeat Ex- 
treme Unetion whenever he doubts prudently that the status 
of the disease has changed. Should he be unable to determine 
this from observing the patient, he may act upon the opinion 
that permits the Unction to be given in all such cases at least 
once a month. 

His obligation of repeating it is a different question. It 
is hard to say that he has any duty in this regard from justice. 
Theologians, as will be remembered, persuade him to this mode 
of action, not because of his office, but because the procedure 
itself seems in closer conformity with the ancient practices of 
the Church, and because of the spiritual benefit which accrues 
to the sick man.?°3 

III. The third case takes up the question of repeating the 
sacrament when a man, already anointed in danger of death, 





881 D. 40, s. 4, n. 7. 
882 Cf. Sebastiani, Summ. Th. M., n. 510; Rohling, Medulla, p. 380. 
383 Cf. Grosam, Linz. Quartal., anno 1926, II, pp. 352-358. 


Requisites in the Subject for Administration 199 
and Repetition 


has never passed beyond the border-line of peril. In him there 
has been no recovery, but simply a gradual decline towards 
death. Can such a one be anointed a second time? 

The words of the Council of Trent show clearly that a 
recovery of some kind is required. It is not merely a question 
of length of time in the danger, but a question of recovery and 
relapse. Hence when the danger of death is certainly the same, 
no theologian will permit a reanointment. Thus St. Alphonsus 
says: “‘Unde adverte quod in morbo diuturno, si infirmus post 
unctionem certe manserit in eodem periculo mortis, non poterit 
rursus ungi.’’°°4 Bishop MacDonald notes that it is not a 
question of time at all, it is ‘‘a question of growing better and 
then again getting worse—of being pronounced out of danger 
and then falling back into a like danger again.’’ 355 Hence, he 
Says, a person once anointed, who lingers on for two or three 
months, sinking slowly but perceptibly all the time, eannot be 
refreshed a second time with the sacrament of the Unction. In 
similar fashion Noldin writes: ‘‘In eadem autem infirmitate 
sacramentum iterandum non est, quamdiu certo idem mortis 
periculum perdurat.’’ 384 

Moreover, the prescriptions of the canon are in no way 
verified if no new danger has arrived. The canon asks for a 
convalescence and another discrimen vitae. 

It is to be noted, however, that if the danger of death is 
of extremely long duration, e. g., for over a year, Genicot allows 
repetition of the unction. Such a danger, he says,°87 ‘‘quamvis 
verius physice jugiter permansisse dicendum sit, moraliter ta- 
men ex aestimatione communi aliud censetur.’’ Accordingly in 
his Casus Conscientiae, he permits the anointment of a lady in 
the same physical danger of death for over two years, adding 
as a reason that in the popular estimation a new danger had 
arisen, ‘‘cui vulgari aestimatione inhaerendum est potius quam 


seientificae medicorum existimationi, in regula vulgo applican- 
da’? 388 


384 Th. M., VI, 715. 

885 The American Ecclesiastical Review, vol. XLII, p. 20; ef. vol. XIX, 
p. 429. 

886 De Sac, 447, 3. 

387 Inst. Th. M., Il, 423. 

888 Casus Consc., cas. 889, p. 576. 





200 Extreme Unction 


Another question in regard to repetition is this: ‘‘Must 
the sacrament be given a second time in the same danger of 
death, if it has been received sacrilegiously the first time? 


The answer can be simply given. The law against repeti- 
tion is absolute. No allowance is made for the case where the 
patient was not in good dispositions at the time he first received 
the sacrament. Moreover the powers of reviviscence possessed 
by the sacrament regaim the graces for the subject after the 
obstacle has been removed.**® Babenstuber expresses this well: 


‘‘Quaeritur an istud sacramentum possit esse validum et informe 
ita ut recedente fictione conferat suum effectum? Respondeo affirma- 
tive cum communi Doctorum. Ratio est: quia est sacramentum inite- 
rabile, saltem pro certo tempore, nempe durante eodem morbo seu 
statu morbi . .. ; adeoque, si sine aliquo defectu substantiali et 
eum solo obice sive defectu dispositionis ex parte subjecti requisitae 
fuit receptum, postea vero obex removeatur, ponaturque sufficiens 
dispositio, effectum suum producit, ne infirmus fructu illius totaliter 
privetur. ’ 390 


The final question in this regard has to do with the admissi- 
bility of repeating unction in the case where a man, already 
anointed because he is in danger of death from one source, 
falls into a second danger of death from another source inde- 
pendent from the first. Such a contingency would occur when 
a sick man would be mortally wounded or should drink poison, 
ete. 


Diana distinguishes as to the mode of procedure. If the 
second danger is one closely connected with the first, so that by 
its very nature it is ordinarily concomitant with or consequent to 
the first danger, it should be considered as the perdurance of 
one and the same state of sickness. If, on the other hand, the 
second danger is absolutely independent from the first, and is 
in itself sufficiently vehement to put the man in danger of death, 
even if the first danger of death were not at all present, Diana 
thinks it not improbable that the sacrament can be validly and 
licitly repeated. Such a man has a new sickness and a new 
danger of death. Consequently he comes again from a new 
reason under the scope of the Jacobean prescription. The first 


389 Cf. supra, chap. I, sec. VI, n. 2, p. 50, sq. 
390 Ethica Supernat., De Ext. Unct., art. 5, n. 5 





Requisites in the Subject for Administration 201 
and Repetition 


sacrament spends its effects against the first danger; its possi- 
bilities of corporal cure do not extend to this second and sub- 
sequent sickness. To obtain these effects a new administration 
of the sacrament has to be made. Accordingly, Diana concludes: 
‘‘Probabile omnino puto posse iterum licite et valide Extremam 
Unctionem recipere.®?! 


Dieastillo,?°? Gobat °° and Elbel-Bierbaum *°4 coneur in this 
view of Diana. On the other hand permissibility of reanointing 
is denied by Petrus Dens.*°® Such a patient, he says, does not 
fall into a different danger of death. Rather the existing danger 
is increased and intensified by a new cause. ‘‘Hie non attendi- 
tur ad diversitatem causarum ex quibus periculum oritur, sed ad 
ipsum moriendi periculum, quavis ex causa ortum: hoe autem 
supponitur non fuisse sublatum, sed potius ex nova causa adauc- 
tum.’’ In similar fashion Noldin writes: ‘‘In eadem autem 
infirmitate sacramentum iterandum non est, quamdiu certo idem 
mortis periculum perdurat. Quodsi mortis periculum accedente 
novo morbo augetur, idem, non novum, periculum censetur.’’ 39° 


The canon does not forbid a second administration in such 
a case. It uses the phrase ‘‘in eadem infirmitate;’’ but this is 
not the case here. Even conceding Noldin’s point (which should 
be better proven by him) that it is but an increased danger of 
death, it can rightfully be claimed that there is a new illness. 
Indeed it seems truer to say that the man is in danger of death 
from a double source, and not from an intensified cause. Sup- 
pose that the first sickness receded, while the second danger 
still threatened the life of the man. If with Dens and Noldin 
we hold that no attention is to be given to the sources of danger, 
but simply to the status of the recipient, in this latter case no 
repetition can be made. If, however, we realize that the passing 
of the patient out of danger from that score means the passing 
of the radix pericult which created the condition in him nec- 


391 Ov. Coord., t. II, tr. IV. res. 40. 

392 De Sacramentis, t. I, tr. 7, disp. 1, dub. 10, n. 164. 
393 Moral., tr. VIII, n. 899. 

ae elii. Cont, x, ms 204. 

205 Theol. Mech., ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’. N. 11, +p. 60. 

896 De Sac., 447, 3. 


202 Extreme Unction 


essary for the first unction, it would seem that a reiteration of 
the sacrament is wholly permissible.?”7 

In practice, in regard to the original question, either opin- 
ion can be safely followed. Both seem to be endowed with 
probability, both intrinsic and extrinsic. No obligation can be 
placed on the pastor, however, to make him perform the second 
administration. The right of the patient to such a bestowal is 
not in any way clear. 


397 Th. M., III, Conf. X, n. 231. 


CHAPTER VI. 


CONDITIONAL ADMINISTRATION 


CANON 941. 


Quando dubitatur num infirmus usum rationis atti- 
gerit, num in periculo mortis reipsa versetur, vel num 
mortuus sit, hoc sacramentum ministretur sub conditione. 


[ 203 ] 





iid 

ok, 
ee 

" a 

J f 

9 

a 

- 

= 
- 

rs 

~ 7 

is > 

- 

, *s 

5 
~~ POS 
Jane 

an 

ag ‘ 


e 


A Oe ag Oe - —__? & we © > el 


CHAPTER VI. 


Our sacraments are holy treasures, bequeathed by a merciful 
God to be dealt to sinners in order that they may become 
like to Him. They are not rewards of holiness, but are given to 
make men holy. Yet their intrinsic sanctity is so paramount, 
that they may not be scattered indiscriminately to all comers. 
The wedding garment must be donned before admission can 
be had to the viands of the king. 

Gifts as hallowed as these will not permit profanement by 
a distribution which may be frustrated by the lack of necessary 
qualifications in the recipient. 

On the other hand it would be too cruel to admit an admin- 
istration only to those who could furnish certain and unim- 
peachable evidence of their right to receive this sacred legacy. 
The benefits derived therefrom are too enormous to any one 
who has the least title to them. At the close of life, a depriva- 
tion of them would entail unspeakable consequences. The dying 
man needs every assistance against the perils of that period. 

In her provident wisdom the Church has found a way to 
safeguard the sanctity of her treasures and the rights of her 
children at such a time. She decrees that in the face of a 
doubtful right to the sacrament arising from the dubious pres- 
ence of a necessary qualification a conditional administration 
of the sacraments necessary to salvation is to be made. 

Accordingly in this canon such an administration is per- 
mitted when the doubt revolves about the presence of a nec- 
essary corporal disposition in the subject. In the Canon 940 
administration was forbidden except to a faithful, who after 
the attainment of reason has fallen into a danger of death from 
sickness or senility. This canon provides for situations where 
any of these conditions is lacking. Thus if there is a doubt 
that the subject has attained the use of reason, or whether he 
is actually in danger of death (from sickness or senility), or 
whether he is still living, the sacrament is imparted condition- 
ally. Each of these conditions is required for the validity 


[ 205 ] 


206 Extreme Unction 


of the administration. The lack of any one of them makes the 
subject totally unfit for reception; and administration to one 
who is certainly lacking in one of these qualities is not only 
mull but sacrilegious. Shrinking from even the possibility of a 
frustrated administration in this regard, yet eager to attempt 
all for the salvation of the subject, the Church instructs her 
ministers that in such instances both the sanctity of the sacra- 
ments and the salvation of. their subjects must be equally pro- 
tected by a conditional application. ‘‘In extremis extrema ten- 
tanda swnt.’’ 


A) “Num infirmus usum rationis attigerit.’’ 


The use of reason is attained when the person is capable 
of distinguishing between right and wrong, of realizing a sense 
of moral responsibility, although imperfectly, for the actions 
which he performs. Such a development appears at no definite 
age. Some children of four and five years of age have a finer 
appreciation of moral values than others at ten or twelve. Ac- 
cordingly no respect is to be paid to the age in this question.! 
Simply and solely the moral development in the mind of the 
child must be noted. Pius X? declared it to be a detestable 
abuse not to confer Extreme Unction on children who had 
reached the use of reason. 

The very little that is required of the child in order to 
furnish a positive doubt that he has passed out of the realm of 
irresponsibility can be better appreciated when compared with 
what is necessary for an unconditional administration of the 
Sacrament. Extreme Unction can be given absolutely when the 
child is capable of committing the least venial sin, i. e., at the 
very beginning of his use of reason.? Consequently all that is 
required to permit a conditional administration is a positive 
doubt that the child realizes at least in a confused way that 
there is a difference between right and wrong. Any well- 
founded suspicion on the part of the priest that the child has 
crossed the border-line into reason’s realm is enough to allow 
this conditional administration. 


1 Cf. Blat, Comm. Teat., vol. IIE, p. I, n. 285. 

28. C. de Sac., ‘‘Quam Singulari,’’ 8 Aug. 1910, n. VITI—A. A. §., 
IT, 583. 

8 Cf, supra, chap. IV, p. 141. 


Conditional Administration 207 
Prior to the Code it was much disputed as to the ‘‘modus 
agendi’’ in such a ease, although the more common opinion held 
that a conditional administration was to be made. St. Alphon- 
sus* recounts three different opinions. The first advanced ac- 
cording to the Saint® by Soto, Aureoli and Zambranus, denied 
the administration altogether because it exposed the sacrament 
to the peril of frustration. The second, championed by Sporer® 
and LaCroix’ permitted an unction absolutely. St. Alphonsus 
asserts the more probable opinion to be that which directs a 
eonditional administration, and he aligns himself with the pro- 
ponents of this view.’ The canon has confirmed this opinion 
by raising it from probability to the positive norm of action in 
such cases. 

Accordingly all children are to be anointed if they have 
at any time revealed any signs of moral consciousness. For 
children seven years of age and over such use of reason can be 
presumed, and administration should be made without scruple, 
unless it is positively certain that they have not yet any moral 
sensibilities.® For children under that age an investigation of 
some kind should be made into their mental status. Pastors 
are bound to such an investigation, for otherwise they do not 
provide for the welfare of the child sufficiently and securely. 
As soon as it is evident that the child has or had even a vestige 
of reason, the priest should proceed to the unction without 
delay. Lehmkuhl’® thinks that even though penance has been 
conditionally imparted, it is a most grave sin to refuse to 
administer Extreme Unction to a child whose doubtful use of 
reason makes his salvation uneertain. Lebherz' holds that 
children even four and five years old may receive Extreme 
Unction. Genicot 12 imposes a corresponding obligation on the 
pastor to impart the sacrament. 


SeLjts MM. V1, 19. 

5 Le. 

6 n. 94, 

fer ho Ms lib..6, pars 2,.n: 2111, 

8 Lugo, Renzi, Dicastillo and Diana. Cf. 8. Alph., Th. M., VI, 719; 
Diana, Op. Coord., t. II, tr. 4, res. 43. 

9 Cf. Can. 88, 3—Tanquerey, Th. D., III, n. 781; ‘Certo ungi possunt qui 
septennium attigerunt.’’ 

ST. UM. l, 723, 

11 The Casuist, II, p. 176. 

12 Casus Consc., cas. 888, p. 575; cf. Berardi, Prax. Conf. II, 5000. 


208 Extreme Unction 


What has been said of the evolution of moral life in 
children, can be said also of insane people. If at any time 
during their lives they placed an action which gave an intima- 
tion that it was the act of a being who realized in at least a 
confused way any moral responsibility, they are to be anointed 
sub conditione.2 Indeed there will rarely be a case where a 
man is so totally insane that it can be said that at no time 
in his life was he at least-doubtfully capable of moral imputabil- 
ity. Hence, in practically every ease of an insane subject, the 
sacrament is to be conferred at least conditionally.’ 

The condition to be used in the administration to children 
should be ‘‘Si unquam usum rationis habueris,’’ or more simply, 
‘si capax es.’? In the conditional administration to imsane 
people, Clericatus® states that the condition should be “‘Si 
aliquam culpam in vitae tuae decursu commisisti.’’ Such a 
condition is not strictly correct. As has been seen in the treat- 
ment of Canon 940, the actual commission of sin is not required, 
but simply the capability to commit sin. The condition should 
then read ‘‘S8i aliquam culpam in vitae tuae decursu commit- 
tere potuisti,’’? or, as in the ease of infants, ‘‘St capamx es.’’ 
The briefer clause includes within its comprehension all the 
elements which are necessary for valid receptibility. 


B) ‘‘Num in periculo mortis reispa versetur.’’ 


The second corporal disposition enumerated by the canon 
which may be a matter of doubt is the presence of a real danger 
of death in the sick man. It has been seen in the treatment of 
the preceding canon that Extreme Unction can be given only 
to him whose sickness has advanced to such a state as to imperil 
his life. The progress of the disease to this period is generally 
noted by a physician, a nurse or some other skilled person. 
There are times, however, when such professional advice is lack- 
ing, and the priest is left without any efficient means of diagnos- 
ing the gravity of the case. 





13 St. Alphonsus, Th. M., VI, 732; La Croix, Th. M., lib. VI, pars 2, 
n. 2111; Aerinys, Th. M., 11, nu. 366. 

14 Trombellio, De Eat. Unct., III, diss." X, p. III, n. xi, p. 28; Gobat, 
Moral., tract. VIII, n. 828-30; Tamburini, Th. M., ‘‘de Ext. Unct.,’’ 
ce. 2, paragr. 3, sub. n. 3, ‘Si dubitetur;’’ Clericatus Dects. Sac., 
‘‘de Ext. Unct.,’’ dec. 80, n. 440. 

15 Lic. 


Conditional Administration 209 


Such instanees are not infrequent. They may occur, e. g., 
when a priest finds in a state of unconsciousness a person who 
is addicted to fainting spells. It is present also when a disease 
refuses to reveal its seriousness or non-seriousness, even to a 
physician.1® Prior to operations a doubt may oceur whether 
the patient, suffering from an internal disease, is placed by such 
disease in danger of death. Lastly, in lingering diseases, such 
as consumption and cancer, there may be often real doubt as to 
whether the life of the patient is as yet threatened. 


In all such instances Extreme Unction is to be given con- 
ditionally. The doubt, it is to be noted, should rest on good 
reasons. Reasons grave enough to constitute probable danger of 
death are not necessary, for then the sacrament may be given 
unconditionally ; but some caution must be used against a hasty 
conclusion regarding the serious state of the man. 

Genicot in his ‘‘Casus Conscientiae’’ 17 severely rebukes a 
priest who interrupted Mass to anoint a man presumably 
stricken down with apoplexy but who only a few minutes later 
was found simply to be intoxicated. Such hasty administrations 
expose the sacrament to the derision and ridicule of the bystand- 
ers. It is advisable consequently to await a physician’s decision, 
if at all feasible. If this cannot be done, Extreme Unetion 
should be given conditionally in every case where the priest 
fears that the patient’s affliction may be endangering his life. 
A few judicious words of explanation will effectually remove 
scandal and will preserve the reverence due to the sacrament. 

In such cases of conditional unction—when the doubt re- 
volves about the presence of the danger of death in the subject— 
it is to be noted that a second conditional administration should 
always be made when the presence of this danger becomes a 
certainty. For instance, a man anointed before an operation 
because of a probable danger resulting from his disease should 
be again anointed (of course sub conditione) after the operation, 
if he has become certainly in danger of death thru the use of 
the surgeon’s scalpel 18 or the increased violence of the disease 
he originally had. 


16 Cf, Vermeersch, Th. M., III, 661. 
17 Cas. 886, p. 575. 
18 Cf, supra, chap. V, p. 177 sqq. 


210 Extreme Unction 


C) “Num mortuus sit.’’ 


It is not an unusual experience in a priest’s career to find 
that he has arrived ‘‘just a few moments too late’’ to administer 
the last sacraments to one of the souls in his care. The last 
breath has been drawn, the heart no longer gives forth a pulse, 
and the physician with stethoscope in hand announces that the 
man is ‘‘dead.’’ It is a source of true grief to the priest as he 
stands there, armed with tremendous powers to save souls, yet 
unable to apply them because the man is no longer a “‘homo 
viator.’’ 

Certainly the immensity of the benefits accruing to the 
recipient of the last sacraments require that only the most abso- 
lute certainty of death shall totally preclude every attempt to 
‘administer them. With this in view, scientific men have applied 
their efforts, especially in the present century, to an investigation 
of the exact degree of certitude that can be accredited to the 
popular notion that a man is dead when circulation ceases and 
respiration ends. 


Back in the eighteenth century a Spanish Benedictine, Fr. 
‘Feijoo, challenged the truth of these conclusions of the common 
opinion in two works, a letter entitled ‘‘Contra el Abuso de 
Acelerar mas que conviene los Entierros’’ (edit. Rivadeneyra) 
and a book called ‘‘Sefales de la Muerte Actual.’’ He attacks 
the infallibility of the signs ordinarily believed to be beyond 
question. ‘‘No one knows,’’ he writes, ‘‘what is the soul’s last 
influence on the body, nor in what precise condition the body 
must be in order to preserve its union: with the soul. Hence it 
is impossible to know just when a man dies. Let us take a body 
that has so wasted away as to seem utterly lifeless; let it be 
without respiration, without color, without feeling, without mo- 
tion. We can be certain of only one thing about this body. 
There is in it no perceptible soul-influence. But what is to make 
us sure that in some one or other of the internal organs the soul 
does not perform some function or other? You tell me that life 
comes to an end when the blood ceases to flow and the heart 
ceases to beat. I ask you how you know this. You ean be sure 
of no such thing unless by divine or angelic revelation. All we 


Conditional Administration At P11 


ean be certain of is the absence of any vital action that may 
be perceived by the senses.’’ 1° 


In the last part of the nineteenth century, Dr. Teard 
claimed that dissolution actually took place when the heart 
stopped beating; but he denied the possibility of ascertaining 
with certainty whether the heart-beat had really ceased unless 
the eye confirmed the judgment of the ear either by baring the 
heart to view or by the insertion of a long delicate needle thru 
the body into the heart.?° 

At the beginning of the present century Father Ferreres, 
S. J., invited the Catholic Medical Society (Academia de los 
Santos Cosme y Damian) of Barcelona, to make a study of the 
difference between real and apparent death and to determine 
the symptoms which reveal without peradventure of doubt the 
fact that a man is truly dead. In 1904 he published in the 
periodical, Razon y Fé, the answer of the Society and his own 
personal conclusions.2! Since that time practically all theolo- 
gians have treated the question in some fashion, while all pas- 
toral theologies give generous space to this important proposi- 
$1900.77 

All authorities are inclined to agree with Feijoo that the 
patient usually is not dead immediately upon the cessation of 
circulation and respiration. O’Malley claims that even in cases 
of decapitation it is very probable that the patient does not die 
at once.22 Somatic death is a gradual thing; all organs do not 
die at once definitively, i. e., lose their proper operations. First 
the senses of taste and smell leave the dying man; and then the 
sense of vision weakens—as is evidenced by the patient’s com- 
plaints about the fading light. The sense of touch is often lack- 
ing, especially in the extremities, which beeome cold before the 
rest of the body. Hearing perdures practically to the end, even 


19 Sefiales de la Muerte Actual, 252, sect. IV. 

20 La Mort Réelle et la Mort Apparente, pp. 89-90. 

21 Racon y Fé, vol. VIII, pp. 100-07, 236-38, 371-75, vol. IX, pp. 99-115. 
This appeared in English in the American Ecclesiastical Review, vol. 
XXXIII, pp. 168-73, 273-85, 347-61, 484-95, 587-95, vol. XXXIV, 
pp. 70-78; and in book-form in 1906 (B. Herder, St. Louis). 

22 Cf., e. g., Antonelli, Med. Past., vol. I, pp. 563-613; Sanford, Pastoral 
Medicine, Appendix— ‘‘The Moment of Death’’—by Walter M. 
Drum, 8. J., pp. 223-35; O’Malley, ‘‘ Ethics of Med. Homicide,’’ 
cap. iv, pp. 83-91; &c. 

3 O'Malley, ‘‘Ethics of Med. Homicide,’’ p. 83. 


to 


212 Extreme Unction 


though the sick man seem without movement and apparently 
dead2! Even the lack of activity in the greater vital organs, 
the brain, the heart and the lungs, are no longer considered 
infallible signs of the separation of the soul from the body. 

Drs. Coutenot, Laborde and Blane, together with the mem- 
bers of the Barcelona Academy, unite in their opinions that the 
soul may adhere to the body without exerting the great vital 
functions.2> Since that time, more recent experiments show that 
cardiac activity may continue even after it becomes impercep- 
tible by a stethoscope, and even after respiration has ceased. 
Dr. Robinson of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research 
in New York found that the heart may beat for half an hour 
after all vascular and circulatory sounds have ceased to be 
heard2¢ Icard discovered exactly the same in his professional 
experience. He tells of a case where the physician, tried unsuc- 
cessfully for an hour to listen to heart-beats, and then upon 
opening the thoracic cavity the heart was found to be still 
beating and the subject still living.2* If such scientific methods 
fail to note the presence of life, it can easily be seen how posi- 
tively obsolete the old-fashioned candle-test and mirror-test are 
in connection with this question. 

Other uncertain signs of death are 1) the absence, even for 
a long time, of sensibility of the skin and of intelligence ; 2) the 
gathering of a viscous covering over the cornea of the eye; 3) the 
unusual amplitude of the pupil of the eye; 4) the relaxation 
of the sphincters; 5) the failure of the blood flowing from the 
canals of circulation to coagulate; 6) the loss of tissue-elasti- 
city, due largely to solidification of subcutaneous fat, so that 
the position assumed by the surface tissue at the moment of 





24 Antonelli, Med. Past., Il, p. 565. A practical caution can be deduced 
from the fact that the patient can hear until almost the last moment. 
The priest and attendants should be careful to say nothing which 
will hasten the death of the sick man by depressing his spirits with 
remarks about the hopelessness of the case, &c. On the other hand, 
they should make many pious ejaculations into the ear of the patient, 
speaking slowly and distinctly—but not shouting. 

5 Countenot, in ‘‘Htudes Franciscaines,’’? Jan. 1901, p. 44; Laborde, 
Bulletin de Académie de Médicine, seance du 4 janvier, 1900, p. 
64; Blane, El Criterio Catolico en las Ciencias Medicas, 1903, p. 171. 

‘‘4 Study with the Electrocardigraph of the Mode of Death of the 
eae Heart,’’ in the Journal of Experimental Medicine, 1912, xvi, 
Dp. : 

La Mort Réelle et la Mort Apparente, pp. 89-90. 





i) 
Or 


to 
o>) 


tw 
=] 


¥ 


a 


Conditional Adminstration 213 


solidification tends to become fixed.2® None of these is a suffi- 
cient indication to the physician to enable him to pronounce with 
any finality the death of the patient. 

There are, however, several signs of death that are regarded 
by physicians to be clear evidence of the dissolution of the soul 
and the body. The first of these is the absolute absence of mo- 
tions of the heart. We have already cited Drs. Coutenot, 
LaBorde and Blane against this contention. Furthermore Dr. 
Crile, of Cleveland, whom O’Malley terms ‘‘one of best medical 
authorities on this matter of somatic death,’’ says that the 
human respiratory centre may survive anemia from thirty to 
fifty minutes, and in the meantime cardiac resuscitation may be 
attempted.2® Dr. Wayne Babcock, of Philadelphia, reported 
to the American Therapeutic Society some very interesting cases 
of his own, which were recorded in the ‘‘Proceedings’’ of that 
Society for the year 1912. All this conspires, of course, against 
the certainty of this sign of death, with the consequence that 
there is still at least a tenuous probability of the presence of 
life, even in those whose heart-beats have surely ceased. 

A second sign is the ‘‘frigus cadavericum,’’ the constantly 
gerowing coldness that overtakes the body after the departure 
of the soul. Yet it must be remembered that some diseases 
increase the heat of the body at the time of agony and even after 
death. The age of the person and the nature of the disease 
also determine to a great extent the amount of heat in the 
body. Those afflicted with chronic illnesses, as hemorrhages, 
or those asphyxiated by drowning evidence much less heat of 
body than those stricken down by an acute disease hke apoplexy. 
As a result the presence or non-presence of heat is far from 
infallible in determining the existence of somatic death in the 
subject.°° 

Another sign is the rigidity of the body (rigor cadavericus), 
whereby the muscles become so stiff and taut that they can no 
longer be extended or distended. If this is certainly present, it 
must be econeeded that death has really occurred. There is 
a great liability, however, that physicians may mistake a catalep- 
28 Antonelli, Med. Past., II, pp. 571-72; Adami, The Principles of Path- 

ology, p. 915. 


29 Cf. O’Malley, Ethics of Med. Homicide, p. 84. 
30 Antonelli, Med. Past., II, p. 580. 


214 Extreme Unction 


tic or tetanic stiffness for the rigor mortis.2! However, as 
Ieard notes,®? expert examination of the corpse can deduce posi- 
tive indications of dissolution from the rigidity. Accordingly 
the presence of this sign determines death with certitude only 
for the skilled examiner. 


A third indication of death is cadaveric lividity. Due to 
the gravitation of the blood to dependent capillaries, the lower 
parts of the body show within a few hours after death a livid 
reddening, or, where the blood is more venous, a bluish purple 
eolor. If there has been a cyanosis with a great distention of 
the superficial capillaries before death (as occasionally occurs 
in the vessels of the neck and face when death is due to as- 
phyxia), a similar and even more intense lividity may be pres- 
ent over surfaces not dependent. In places where there is 
pressure, as over the shoulder-blades, the mere weight of the 
body effectually prevents the coloring of the capillaries, and 
consequently these regions remain pale.*? Lividity is not by 
any means an infallible sign of death. It is quite possible even 
for physicians to confuse it with purpura hemorrhagica, a dis- 
ease in which blood is extravasated within the tissues. 


Various other signs of death have been advanced but none 
have proved very satisfactory, with the exception of those which 
will be immediately noted. The Paris Academy offered a prize 
to the one who would find any certain sign of death other than 
rigidity and putrefaction. One hundred and two papers were 
submitted; but all of them failed to prove that the lesser func- 
tions were no longer carried on when the greater vital actions 
ceased. 


81 A very recent incident of this appeared in the Philadelphia Public 
Ledger, Jan. 3, 1923. It reads as follows: ‘‘ Public Ledger Foreign 
Service: Madrid, Jan. 2, 1923 (By Cable)—The most sensational 
event that ever occurred in the town of Zamora was the discovery 
on New Year’s Day at a graveside that a supposed corpse was alive. 
Virtually all the town attended the funeral of Dona Laura Rodriquez, 
widow of a commander in the army and well known in Madrid so- 
ciety. At the last moment before the coffin was lowered into the 
grave, it was uncovered to permit her eight children to have a last 
look at their mother. When a physician approached the coffin he was 
dumbfounded to notice signs of life in its occupant. Other doctors 
were hurriedly sent for and they verified that her heart was still 
beating. The ‘corpse’ was in a state of catalepsy.’’ 

82 La Mort Réelle et la Mort Apparente, p. 25. 

83 Adami, The Principles of Pathology, p. 915. 





Conditional Administration OID 


The sign regarded by all as certain is putrefaction or de. 
composition. This sets in when rigidity ceases, and consists in 
a general mortification of the body. It generally commences 
over the abdomen as a greenish discoloration. Its onset is in- 
deed variable, and is delayed considerably by a great cold and 
hastened materially by heat and warmth. The organs which are 
normally moist and which contain abundant bacteria exhibit 
signs of putrefaction first. The intestinal canal is most mark- 
edly affected. Many factors, however, may enter into the putre- 
factive process. For instance, cases of acute infection and of 
bacteremia are especially susceptible to early decomposition. This 
is ascribable not only to the action of the specific pathogenic or- 
gvanisms but also to the fact that the protective substances of the 
organism have been exhausted in the course of the infection 
with the consequence that the growth of putrefactive bacteria is 
in no way inhibited. Snake poisoning, in which there is a rapid 
decomposition of the antibodies, induces a speedy decomposi- 
tion. On the other hand arsenical and certain other intoxica- 
tions may very appreciably delay the onset of putrefaction.** 
Only one caution must be noted. Decomposition of the whole 
body in advanced state should be demanded. A decomposition 
that has just commenced may be the result of a gangrene that 
precedes death, and not that which follows it. 


Two other tests were used during the recent World War 
upon many soldiers brought into dressing stations apparently 
dead from shell-shock, from head or spinal wounds or from 
asphyxiation. The first test was to inject a little alkaline solu- 
tion of fluorescine beneath the skin. If there is any circulation 
at all, the dye will be carried to the eye and will color the 
conjunctiva green. The second test was to puncture the spleen 
or liver with a needle and draw therefrom a tiny bit of pulp. 
When the blood was withdrawn this pulp was applied to blue 
litmus paper. The reaction of living pulp is alkaline, blue; of 
dead pulp, red or acid.*® Although, it is true, these tests may 
produce some degree of certainty, it is needless to say that they 





34 Adami, The Principles of Pathology, p. 915. 
85 Sasse, Presse Medicale, xxiv, 66—O’Malley, Ethics of Med. Homicide, 
pp. 90-1. 


216 Extreme Unction 


can be applied only in very unusual circumstances, due to: lack 
of necessary equipment. 

For the priest ordinarily the only sign which he can regard 
as indicating certain death is putrefaction. What he must be 
most eareful of is not to mistake ‘‘apparent’’ death for real 
somatic death. The more frequent cases of apparent death are 
those resulting from asphyxia, swooning, lethargy, catalepsy, 
epileptic coma, electric -shock, paralysis and narcotic poison- 
ings. Asphyxia consists in an apparent lack of respiration and 
blood circulation. It occurs when the air supply to the lungs 
has been cut off by drowning, strangulation or the inhaling of 
poisonous gas.3° Such a condition can perdure several hours. 
Swooning or fainting fits manifest a more or less perfect sus- 
pension of respiration and circulation, and not rarely induce 
a diminution of the heat of the body. Catalepsy is a nervous 
disease which occurs intermittently without fever. Sensibility 
becomes altogether lacking, the muscles become inert and rigid, 
consciousness often departs and the body keeps in the same 
position as if petrified. Its duration may extend over many 
hours and even days. Lethargy consists in a profound stupor, 
with the eyes almost closed, the members taut and all sensibility 
lacking. It may last thruout several days. Epileptic coma is 
a state of unconsciousness which follows grave convulsions in 
epilepties. It is characterized by a tranquil respiration and is 
rarely remembered by the patient upon his return to normalcy. 
Electric shock occurs when a man is struck by lightning or 
comes into contact with an electric current. These men do not 
always die immediately, for artificial respiration has revived 
many. Usually a paralysis of the centre of respiration is in- 
duced, which will have a fatal termination unless immediately 
overcome. Hence the result of this shock can be said to be a 
form of asphyxia. Paralysis consists in the loss of the power of 
voluntary motion, with or without sensation. It often results 
in the abolition, either complete or partial, of some of the fune- 
tions of the body. Narcotic stupors are profound sleeps caused 
by nareotie drugs such as laudanum, morphine, cocaine, hash- 
eesh, ete. The physical effects of heavy indulgence in these are, 
chiefly, a diminution of pulse, a deep pallor, dilation of pupils, 





36 Capellman, Med. Past., p. 179 sqq. 


Conditional Adminstration 217 


coldness of the extremities and almost imperceptible or spas- 
modie respiration. It may affect the body in this fashion for 
several days. 


Various authors go to great lengths to cite examples of 
apparent death resulting from each of the causes enumerated.*? 
Occasionally, also, the daily press carries the news of incidents 
of this kind,38 thus adding example to example in proof of the 
contention that no sign of death is unfailing except putrefac- 
tion. The Barcelona Academy was convinced of this, for among 
the resolutions it adopted, the following is found with no dis- 
senting voice: ‘‘Resolved: Facts have demonstrated that a man 
ean be revived after remaining hours in a state in which all 
siens of life have disappeared, such as consciousness, speech, 





37 Antonelli, Med. Past., II, pp. 595-602; Ferreres, Real and Apparent 
Death, pp. 72-101; Sanford, Pastoral Medicine, 233-5; O’Malley, 
Ethics of Med. Homicide, pp. 84-7. 

88 E.g. The following article appeared in the daily press recently: 
‘‘Madisonville, Ky., March 9—Roscoe Qualls, nine-year-old son of 
Lonnie Qualls, yesterday had literally come back from the valley of 
death. For hours his parents and other relatives believed him dead. 
Their grief was piteous. The certain arrangements to be made for 
burial were discussed. The boy heard every word of the arrange- 
ments being made, but he could not move a muscle of his body, 
wink an eye or twitch a lip, nor do anything to show that he still 
lived. 

‘‘Roscoe Qualls, while skating on a pond at his father’s farm, fell, 
striking his head. Paralysis soon set in and it was found that he 
had concussion of the brain and had lost power of speech. Liquid 
food kept him alive, but finally this failed to improve him, and 
while the physician was absent, his parents believed death had come. 
Roscoe says his greatest dread while he lay helpless listening to the 
discussion of his own death was that he would be buried alive. He 
realized that he could not lift a finger to show that he still lived. 
When all hope seemed lost to the boy, an examination was made, 
and he was found to be still breathing. Doctors ministered to him 
and soon afterwards the lad was sitting up.’’ 

Another case appeared in the Washington Post on March 10, 1926, 
and evidences how apt physicians may be to error in accident cases: 
‘¢An ambulance ride was enough to revive Thomas Barnes .... 
last evening after he had been declared ‘dead.’ Barnes was riding 
a motorcycle, which collided at Florida Avenue near Seventh Street, 
N. W., with a street car .... Barnes was thrown to the street, 
unconscious, with blood streaming from cuts on his face. Traffic 
Policeman Tompkins called Casualty Hospital, and Dr. Krouse, of the 
hospital staff, responded with an ambulance. Dr. Krouse, upon his 
arrival, pronounced Barnes dead, and the colored man’s body was 
lifted into the ambulance. Employes of the hospital were about to 
lift the body from the ambulance and place it in the hospital morgue, 
when Barnes sat up. His cuts were treated and he went home.’’ 


218 Extreme Unction 


sensibility, muscular movement, respirations and beatings of the 
heart. This state may logically be called apparent death.’’ *° 


Between the moment ordinarily held to be that of death 
and the moment at which death actually occurs there is then a 
period of latent life. ‘‘Death never comes at a leap,’’ writes 
Dr. Icard,*® ‘‘life is extinguished slowly, gradually, even then 
when death is sudden, as we sometimes eall it. That imterme- 
diate state between life and death exists always; it 1s a normal 
physiological state, thru which we all pass departing from life.’’ 

The length of this period of latent life is of paramount im- 
portance. It is generally conceded that it is of far greater 
duration in eases of sudden deaths than demises following long 
illnesses. The vitality of the man stricken down in his health 
furnishes much more resistance to the grip of death than the 
cells of one who has been ravaged by disease. To determine 
exactly the interval between the appearance of death and death 
itself is very difficult to do. Authors vary as to the extent of 
time because of this very reason. 

Dr. Bassols in the discussions of the Barcelona Academy of 
January 22, 1903, stated that in his opinion the period of latent 
life in sudden deaths lasted until the instant when the rigor 
cadavericus appears.*! Ferreres extends it up to the time when 
mortification commences.** In prolonged sicknesses there is 
more harmony of opinion. Practically all later writers have put 
one-half hour as a reasonable hmit for the latent period after 
long sicknesses.** There are some who are even more generous 
than this, such as O’Malley, who allows one hour at least in 
every case of apparent death.*4 

The practical advantage of all this for the priest lies in the 
fact that he ean with safe conscience absolve and anoint condi- 
tionally at any time during this period of latent life. In eases 
of sudden deaths, where the period of time is long, the sacra- 





89 Concl. 3, El Criter. Catol., Augusti 1903, pag. 227. 

40 La Presse Medicale, quoted by Ferreres, Real and Apparent Death, p. 61. 

41 Gury-Ferreres, Casus Consc., II, 1208. 

42 Real and Apparent Death, p. 81 sqq. It is to be noted that the ‘“putredo 
mortis’’ must be somewhat advanced in order to distinguish it 
from the putrefaction resulting before death from gangrene. 

#3 Ferreres, Real and Apparent Death, p. 87 sqq.; Noldin, De Sac., 294; 
Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 422. 

44 Hthics of Med. Homicide, p. 87. 


Conditional Administration 219 


ments may be administered as long as there is a tenuous prob- 
ability that the man is latently alive. Noldin** thinks that the 
sacraments should be administered within two hours after the 
declaration of death. Genicot*® is no more generous in sudden 
deaths than in eases of slow, drawn-out diseases. Drum** allows 
a conditional administration until the presence of an advanced 
stage of decomposition is evident. O’Malley*® thinks three hours 


a not unreasonable extension of time after the ‘pronouncement 
of death.”’ 


Recent Synodal legislation also allows and instructs Une- 
tion to be administered during the period of latent life. Thus 
the Synod of Madrid (1909) permits an unetion in cases of 
-gudden death after several hours and even after an entire day 
has passed since death became ‘‘apparent.’’ *° 


It will be easily seen that sufficient authority can be educed 
from the various opinions to allow a very wide latitude of 
action. In practice a priest is amply justified in anointing a 
man supposedly dead (from a sudden and unexpected cause) 
up until the time when advanced decomposition has set in.°° 
This period may last for many hours and even thru several 
entire days, depending of course, upon the rapidity with which 
the putrefaction occurs. In the cases of those who have been 
vexed with lingering diseases, the unction may be given con- 
ditionally within at least a half an hour. As noted before, 
O’Malley is more liberal than this. “‘For a whole hour after 
apparent death,’’ he writes, “‘the probability that the soul has 
not departed is so strong that, in my opinion, a priest who does 
not give the necessary sacraments is virtually as guilty as if he 
neglected to administer them to a person evidently alive. Crile, 
one of the best medical authorities on the matter of somatie 
death, holds that the human respiratory system may survive 


45 Lc. 

46 Luc. 

47 Sanford, Pastoral Medicine, p. 235. 

48 Ethics of Med. Homicide, p. 87. 

49 Lib. 2, tit. 3, const. 6, p. 194. Cf. also Syn. Auriensis, const. 78, page 48 
(Orense, 1908); Syn. Cordub. in America, n. 180; Malacitan, lib. 3, 
tit. 7, c. 2 n. 9 (Malaga, 1909); Ancudien., part 2, c. 6, pag. 74 
(S. Carlos de Ancud, 1907); Manilanen., n. 73 (Manila, 1911); 
Cebuen., n. 87 (Manila, 1911); Calbayogan., tit. 2, const. 2, p. 76 
(Manila, 1911), &c. 

50 Gury-Ferreres, Casus Consc., II, 1218. 


220 Extreme Unction 


anemia for from thirty to fifty minutes. How long after the 
hour a priest may administer the sacraments is not known, but 
a second hour, or even a third, are not unreasonable periods of 
time during which the sacraments may be administered condi- 
tionally.’’°! Ferreres *? allows an extension of time if death in 
the lingering disease is brought on prematurely by an accident, 
or by sudden and unforeseen complications. Hence if cessation 
of breath and motion, coupled with apparent insensibility, occurs 
at the time when the patient is in high fever or during an acute 
colic, the change must be ascribed, not to the disease, but to a 
morbid condition of the system. This results in a state not 
unlike asphyxia or syncope; and puts this mode of dying mid- 
way between sudden deaths and lingering dissolutions. Hence 
conditional administration of the sacraments can take place two 
and even three hours after apparent death. In fact, it will 
be very often uncertain that such an accident or complication 
did not occur; with the result that practically always, even 
according to Ferreres’ notion, it will be permissible to anoint 
for two or three hours after pronouncement of death in linger- 
ing illnesses. It must be noted, too, that when Ferreres speaks 
of ‘‘one-half hour after apparent death,’’ he means one-half 
hour after a competent physician with the help of the most 
accurate medical instruments declares the man dead. Very 
often a physician will not be present at this time, and if he 1S, 
he may not have employed such careful means to determine the 
presence of death. Accordingly for a very appreciable time 
after the man is popularly thought to have yielded up his soul, 
the conditional administration of the necessary sacraments is 
allowed. 

Priests will find a practical application of these opinions 
not only in the many accidental deaths which oceur daily, but 
in the executions of criminals by hanging, electrocution or 
shooting. In every instance the priest should endeavor to ad- 
minister as quickly as possible the sacraments of Penance and 
Extreme Unction to the unfortunate man. 


It is quite probable that Extreme Unction will be of more 





51 Ethics of Med. Homicide, pp. 87-88. 
52 Gury-Ferreres, Casus Consc., II, n. 1221; Real and Apparent Death, pp. 
102 sqq. 


Conditional Administration 221 


avail to the patient than absolution in these instances. Penance 
requires the acts of the penitent as at least quasi-matter ; and 
their presence is at most a very dubious thing in such men, 
apparently dead. On the other hand, Extreme Unction demands 
only an habitual intention on the part of the recipient, and 
has, besides its own proper efficacy, all the efficacy of Penance— 
secondarily, it is true, but none the less per se.58 


When administering the sacraments in these contingencies, 
the priest must take precautions not to vive scandal to the by- 
standers. Often he will be able to make the single unction 
(and Extreme Unction should always be given in apparent death 
by the short form) without attracting attention. By grasping 
the patient’s hand, he may anoint the palm, unnoticed.” If 
this cannot be done, an admonition or explanation of the pro- 
cedure to the bystanders will effectually remove all wonder- 
ment.°° 

It is to be noted that it follows as a logical consequence that 
the body should be handled very carefully during the period 
of latent life. It should not be washed or dressed; the eyes 
and mouth should not be closed; the hands should not be 
joined nor the face covered—at least until the appearance of 
the ‘‘rigor cadavericus.”’ Otherwise there is serious danger 
of causing the real death of the patient by asphyxiation.”® 

Another deduction can be made in regard to the observance 
of the rubrie of the Ritual which instructs the priest to leave 
off and proceed no further if the man dies during the rite.’ Of 
course the Ritual means the true demise of the subject. Under 
the recent investigations it would be very difficult to see how a 
priest can know with any degree of certainty that the man is 
truly dead. Consequently, if the man seems to die after the 
rite of the unctions has commenced, the priest may go ahead 





53 Villada, Casus, vol. 3, sect. 7, n. 76; Pesch, Prael. Dogm., VITAE: 
Tanquerey, Th. D., III, 784. 

54 Gury-Ferreres, Casus Consce., II, 1216. Gury-Ferreres notes that it can 
be done on the forehead in such a way that others will not note it. 
To anoint the hand seems easier still, and, as shall be seen in the 
treatment of Can. 947, the unction is just as valid. 

55 O'Malley, Ethics of Med. Homicide, p. 88; Antonelli, Med. Past., I, 
1029. 

56 Antonelli, op. cit., vol. II, n. 1030. 

57 Rit. Rom., tit. V, cap. 1, n. 13: ‘‘Si vero dum inungitur infirmus decedat, 

Presbyter ultra non procedat, et praedictas Orationes omittat.’’ 


222 Extreme Unction 


and finish the other unctions conditionally.58 Even the strictest 
theologians hold the perdurance of life for a few minutes after 
the appearance of death, and as a consequence the continuance 
of the rite is justified by another rubrie of the same chapter 
(n. 14): ‘‘Quod si dubitet an vivat adhue, unctionem prose- 
quatur, sub conditione pronuntiando formam, dicens: ‘Si vivis, 
per istam,’ &¢.’’ Doubt—very positive doubt—will always be 
present during the very few moments required to complete the 
anointings ; and consequently a priest shall never be justified in 
cutting the rite short for the reason that the patient has passed 
away. 

The condition to be attached to the form in all cases like 
this is ‘‘Si vivis.’? It should be expressed as the rubrics 
command, although its verbal omission will not affect the 
validity of the mental condition. The Ritual seems to fol- 
low the suggestion of St. Charles in regard to this express 
mention of the condition. In his Instructions ‘‘De Extrema 
Unctione’’ the great Saint wrote: ‘‘Ministrabit autem dum aeger 
integris sensibus est. Quodsi aliqua morbi vi infirmus oppressus, 
dubitatur vivusne sit an mortuus, tune diligenter de hoe sacerdos 
videbit, consulto etiam medico, si tanta temporis brevitate potest ; 
si non potest, et in dubio est, ea conditione utetur: ‘Si es vwus, 
per istam,’ &e.’®9 
58 Ferreres, Comp. Th. M., II, 856; Homiletic and Pastoral Review, XXVI 


(1926), pp. 851-2; Genicot, Casus Consc., cas. 887, p. 575. 
58 Acta Eccl. Mediol., pars IV, tom. I, p. 603. 


CHAPTER VII 


DENIAL TO IMPENITENTS 


CANON 942. 


Hoc sacramentum non est conferendum illis qui im- 
poenitentes in manifesto peccato mortali contumaciter 
perseverant; quod si hoc dubium fuerit, conferatur sub 
conditione. 


| 223 } 





CHAPTER VII. 


The subject of Extreme Unction must have not only phys- 
ical but also spiritual requirements. In this double demand— 
ex parte corporis et ex parte animae—Uniction shares its dis- 
tinction with Matrimony and with Orders. 

The two preceding canons revealed the physical conditions 
necessary for valid reception, viz., serious illness and a danger 
of death ensuing therefrom. They likewise disclosed two 
requisites of the soul, quite as indispensable in the recipient, 
namely, the presence of the baptismal character and the attain- 
ment of the use of reason. The present canon continues the 
consideration of the spiritual fitness of the subject with a view 
at least to the lawfulness of conferring the sacrament. 


The canon forbids bestowal of Extreme Unction to an im- 
penitent person who is eontumaciously persevering in manifest 
mortal sin. Authorities are divided in their opinions as to 
whether this law was intended to deal primarily and principally 
with the dispositions or with the intention of such a recipient. 
Thus Alb. Semitt, writing in the Lintzer-Quartalschrift,’ con- 
tends that the point at issue is the presence of the intention in 
the subject. Dispositions of soul, such as found in the contuma- 
ciously impenitent, are so evil in their nature that an intention 
of receiving the sacrament cannot coexist with them, prescinding 
of course from the physical possibility (which because of its 
horror is not taken into account here) that a man out of per- 
verseness of heart might have the deliberate intention of re- 
ceiving the sacrament sacrilegiously. Though prima facie deal- 


1 Vol. LXXI (1918), 8. 419, footnote: ‘¢Dieser Kanon handelt vom 
Zweifel an der intention, nicht vom Zweifel an der Disposition (wie 
irrtuemlicherweise behauptet wurde, so dass in manchen Kreisen ein 
Abweichen des neuen Rechtes von der bisherigen Praxis angenommen 
wurde). Erst der tolgende Kanon handelt von zweifelhafter Dispo- 
sition. Es ist das nich das gleiche; zweifelhafte Intention macht die 
Gueltigkeit zweifelhaft; bei zweifelhafter Disposition aber ist das 
Sakrament gueltig, nur ist der fruchbringende Empfang Frage ge- 
stellt. In diesem Falle darf es gar nicht bedingungsweise gespendet 
werden, damit es nach Sicherstellung der Disposition wieder aufleben 
kann,’’ 


[ 225 ] 


226 Extreme Unction 


ing with disposition, yet this canon radically and essentially is 
concerned with the intention of the recipient; and denial of the 
sacrament is consequently ascribable to the lack of the essential 
element of intention and not of the non-essential requisite of 
disposition. 

This view is accepted wholeheartedly by Noldin,? Koudelka,? 
and Woywod.? It is implicitly adopted by at least some of the 
theologians > who teach that in case of doubt the condition ap: 
pended should never be ‘‘Si dispositus es’’—lest reviviscence be 
entirely precluded. Kern,® though writing before the Code, 
asserted the lack of intention to be the reason of the denial of 
this sacrament in the case contemplated in this canon. 


Another group of theologians contend that this law con- 
siders primarily and principally the dispositions of the sick 
man. Unction is forbidden to such a person because there is 
little likelihood that he will come into a better disposition; and 
an administration to him in such a condition of soul would be 
inexcusably irreverent. The refusal of the sacrament is thus 
a punishment, ‘‘a well-deserved—yea, necessary—punishment. 
The punishment is well-deserved, since such an impenitent, ob- 
stinate sinner despises the sacraments and the Church’s means 
of grace or otherwise he would amend his ways. The punish- 
ment is necessary, because under such conditions the sacrament 
would be frustrated and dishonored. The sacraments cannot 
give grace nor increase it in the case of one who will not 
absolutely renounce sin. In such eases the words of our Savior 
are pertinent: ‘Nolite dare sanctum canibus’ (Matt. vii, 6).’”7 


2 De Sac., 445. 

3 Pastors, Their Rights and Duties, p. 153. 

4 A Practical Commentary, I, n. 865: ‘*‘Some commentators explain 
those words of the Code as a lack of will and intention to receive 
the Sacrament, and, when interpreted in that sense the Code agrees 
with the common teaching of theologians that, if there is a doubt 
about the intention to receive the Sacrament, it can, at most, be 
administered conditionally. This acceptation of the words of Canon 
942 seems reasonable. No adult who has or has had the use of 
reason, can receive any gift of God unless he is willing to receive it. 
Obstinate perseverance in open mortal sin excludes all will and 
intention to receive a Sacrament.’’ 

Cf. e. g., Telch, Epit. Th. M., p. 300; Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M. 
II, 423, footnote. ; 

6 a de Ext. Unct., p. 320. 

7 Pruemmer, in The Homiletic and Pa L 

ieee ; Pastoral Review, XXVI (1926), pp. 


nA 


Denial to Impenitents 227 


Those who maintain this latter view of the question, besides 
Pruemmer, are Blat,’ Tanquerey,® Vermeersch” and O ’Donnell."! 
Mothon?2 also seems to espouse this opinion when he speaks of 
the ‘‘state of soul of the sick man’’ (1’état d’ame du malade) 
in his treatment of this canon. For them it is not a question 
of validity of administration, but rather of the liceity of the 
action. 

This latter seems the better view. In the first place, it is 
not alien to the policy of the Church to forbid the anointment 
of a subject whose dispositions are so evil as to be incompatible 
with the intrinsic sanctity of the sacrament. This is evident 
from a decision of the Holy Office 13 in 1892, whereby: Catholics 
who had ordered their bodies to be cremated were to be denied 
the sacrament, unless upon advisement they retracted their 
perverse wills. The denial of the sacrament is due to the re- 
fusal on the part of these men to do what they are bound 
under pain of mortal sin to do. They might have every inten- 
tion of receiving the sacrament, they might even have asked that 
it be bestowed, and they may evidence contrition for all sins 
except the one mentioned in the decree. Nevertheless, the sac- 
rament must be withheld, despite the fact that it can be re- 
ceived validly by such subjects. 

This is likewise revealed by an inspection of the rubric of 
the Ritwale before its latest revision. According to its preserip- 
tions Extreme Unetion was not to be conferred upon impeni- 
tents and those dying in manifest mortal sin.4 It is indeed 
difficult to see why an intention of receiving Extreme Unction 
could not co-exist with the state of soul of one dying in manifest 
mortal sin. This clearly shows that the Holy See believes that, 
at least under certain circumstances, the reverence due the 
sacrament is not to be sacrificed to the possible benefit that may 
acerue to an improperly disposed subject. 

And if at times the Holy See prohibits the administration 


8 Comm. Tect., lib. III, p. I, nu. 286. 

ORL RUD, all, (OF 

10 Th. M., III, 662 & 184. 

11 I. E. Record, vol. XII, Fifth Series (1918), p. 287. 

12 Institutions Canoniques, II, p. 233, art. 2030; cf. Bargilliat, Drotts et 
Devoirs des Curés, 245 (c¢). 

18 §. C. 8. Off., 27 Jul. 1892, ad I—Coll. 8. C. P. F., n. 1808. 

Rath. y Ol 23 De: 


228 Extreme Unction 


of this sacrament to those who lack certain dispositions of soul, 
it is quite probable that this canon is an example of such a 
policy. For contumacy, which the canon speaks of, is certainly 
a state of the soul. Primarily and directly it refers to the 
lack of disposition; only remotely and indirectly does it have 
any relation with the intention of the sick man. True, the 
disposition influences, in many cases, the intention to receive, 
or not to receive, this sacrament. And it also seems to be 
possible that a man can have the will and intention to receive 
the sacrament and also not have a detestation of and aversion 
to mortal sin. Yet in every case of contumacious perse- 
verance in manifest mortal sin the sacrament is to be withheld. 
As a consequence the refusal must be ascribed to the presence 
of the unworthy dispositions of the sick man. 


As yet, there has been no official solution of the question. 
Many authors accordingly content themselves with a simple 
mention of the canon and do not wish to enter into the matter 
until further decision.1® In practice there will be no difficulty ; 
for whether the man’s ineapacity arises from the lack of an 
essential element, or from the lack of even the minimum soul- 
disposition necessary for licit bestowal, the result is the same 
—such a man is not to receive the sacrament. 


What are these conditions of soul which are so frightful 
that conferring of the sacrament is altogether forbidden? 
Though ever shrinking from sacrilege, the Church is not un- 
mindful of the weaknesses of her children—and when they are 
in extreme necessity, she will go far before forbidding the 
treasures of grace to them. She realizes full well the import 
of the phrase ‘‘Quantum humana fragilitas nosse sinit.’’ She 
knows the maze of contending motives and prineiples within 
men—and she realizes, too, that in many cases only God ean 
tell what is in us and what is of us. So in her merey, the 
Church denies this sacrament to those only whom she is strictly 
bound to exclude. And the unworthiness of even these men 
must be strictly verified before administration can be totally 


15 Cf. Woywod, ‘‘The Sacrament of Extreme Unction,’’ in the Homiletic 
and Pastoral Review, XXII, p. 768, where he practically admits this. 

16 Cf. Ferreres, Comp. Th, M., II, 848, Quaer. 8; Sabetti-Barrett, Th. M., 
p. 808; Augustine, 4 Commentary, IV, p. 404; Matha.an-Castillon, 
Asserta Moralia, n, 521; Arregui, Summ, Th. M., n. 665, &e. 


7 


Denial to Impenitents 229 


refused. If there is the slightest doubt, conditional administra- 
tion not only may, but must be made—‘‘conferatur sub eondi- 
tione.”’ 


As before stated, this canon forbids the bestowal of Unction 
upon an impenitent man who is persevering contumaciously m 
manifest mortal sin. Primarily the law obligates the minister, 
but ratione subjecti. Holy things are to be treated in holy 
fashion, and not wasted indiscriminately upon subjects either 
totally unworthy or positively unwilling to receive them. 

In order to justify the absolute denial of the sacrament, 
the minister must be morally certain that the patient is im- 
penitently and contumaciously persevering in manifest mortal 
sin. Five things then are required: the subject must be 1) ob- 
stinate and econtumacious in 2) his impenitence with regard 
to a 3) manifest 4) mortal sin; while the minister must 5) 
have certainty with regard to the existence of this soul-condi- 
tion of the subject. 


It is necessary that a man be not only impenitent in the 
eyes of the minister, but that he contumaciously persevere in 
such impenitence. Certainty of his continued and prolonged 
refusal is required. Impenitence signifies the lack of sorrow 
necessary for the remission of sins either per se or with the 
help of the sacraments. Blat ‘1 states simply that ‘‘impaeni- 
tentes’’ are ‘“‘poenitentiam cordis qua indigent non habentes.’’ 
Baruffaldo 18 declares that they are those ‘‘qui, cum publice 
peccaverint, nullum paenitentiae signum dederunt, adeo ut a 
peccato suo non recessisse nemini notum sit.’? O’Kane™ agrees 
with this definition of Baruffaldo. And practically this should 
be accepted as the more merciful opinion. Hence nothing short 
of a total dearth of signs of repentance for a notable length of 
time is sufficient to constitute the contumacious impenitence of 
the patient. 


The impenitence must have to do with a sin that is mani- 
festly mortal. The rubric of the Ritual,°° before its latest re- 


17 Comm. in Tect., 1. III, p. I. n. 286. 

18 Ad Rom. Rit. Comm., t. I, tit. 27, n. 72; ef. Gobat., Moral., tr. VII, 
602-3. 

19 The Rubrics, n. 864. 

20 Tit. V, c. 1, n. 8 (edit. 1913): ‘‘Impoenitentibus vero, et qui in 
manifesto peccato mortali moriuntur , , . penitus denegetur,’’ 


230 Extreme Unction 


vision, distinguished the ‘‘impenitent’’ from ‘‘those dying in 
mortal sin,’’ but withheld the sacrament from both groups. 
The present canon (and similarly the rubric of the new Ritual 
—Tit. V, e. 1, n. 10) differs from the former rubric in an im- 
portant respect. Now there is required a prolonged, a contu- 
macious impenitence in a manifest mortal sin. The old rubrie 
seemed to forbid the administration also to those who were 
“‘actu’’ in mortal sin, thus depriving of the sacraments persons 
rendered unconscious in the act of sin.?)_ Now it is not altogether 
unlikely that a man in mortal sin actu should have an intention 
of afterward repenting and receiving the sacraments. Such a 
man the present canon does not seem to exclude, because it 
demands a contumacious impenitence which presupposes absolute 
unworthiness of the sacrament, for it precludes the possibility 
of the intention of subsequent repentance. 


The sin of the subject must be mortal—and manifestly so. 
There must be no room for doubt that the man is laboring 
under ignorance or a false conscience. Hence the gravity of 
the sin must be subjective on the part of the patient. If the 
minister knows of certain theological quirks which the patient 
possesses on certain matters, inclining the patient to view sins 
objectively serious as only venial, he may not deny at least a 
conditional administration of the sacrament. Such action would 
be positively unjustifiable. 

Finally, at least moral certainty as to the evil state of 
the subject’s soul is required of the minister. Probability in 
such a matter is under no circumstances enough to deprive a 
soul wholly of its right to this source of grace. The slightest 
doubt not only warrants, but makes of obligation, a conditional 
administration. 


When all these requirements are verified, the priest may not 
proceed to anoint. According to one opinion, recounted above, 
such an unction would not only be illicit, but positively invalid; 
while all theologians agree that it would be certainly sacrilegious. 


21 Thus commentators of the old rubric looked at the matter. KE. g. 
Baruffaldo (4d Rom. Rit. Comm., t. I, tit. 27, n. 72) defined 
manifest sinners as those ‘‘qui in actu mortaliter peccaminoso morte 
correpti sunt, aut actualiter peccando, sensibus destituti sunt.’’ 
O’Kane (The Rubrics, n. 864) gives as an example a murderer 
wounded mortally in the act of killing his victim.’’ 


Denial to Impenitents 231 


To whom, then, must be denied even a conditional adminis- 
tration of this sacrament? In the case of a patient still con- 
scious the priest will have an opportunity to explore the dispo- 
sitions and to arrive at a prudent judgment as to his procedure 
in the matter. Surely the sacrament cannot be given to those 
who obstinately refuse to do what they are bound under pain of 
mortal sin to perform. ‘‘Moraliter enim certum est,’’ says Kern,” 
eos habitualiter permanere in sua obstinatione ideoque positive 
esse indignos.”’ 

Thus Catholics, though not Masons nor even influenced by 
Masonic principles (and hence not excommunicated), who order 
the cremation of their bodies and persist in their will even after 
an admonition, cannot be granted the sacraments of the dying.** 
Whether, however, they should be admonished, or simply left 
in good faith, is left to the prudence of the priest, who should 
act in accordance with the direction of the approved authors, 
with an especial regard toward the avoidance of scandal. 

In like manner, Catholics who have become notorious mem- 
bers of the Odd Fellows must show signs of reconciliation, if 
possible, before any sacraments can be bestowed. If they are 
prevented by weakness or other cause, and if they exhibit marks 
of penance and devotion, they may receive the sacraments and 
have ecclesiastical burial.?4 


Other examples of a man refusing to do what he is obliged 
sub gravi to perform would be the unwillingness of a man to 
leave his concubine, the refusal of a woman to renounce a life 
of harlotry, &c. In this class, too, can be placed, manifest 
sinners who reject the sacraments repeatedly, though aware of 
their value, by the deliberate will of dying without them. As 
long as consciousness perdures, these people cannot be anointed 
without their consent.?° 

Not to be confused with such a perverse will is the refusal 
of one to receive the sacrament, not from the intention of dying 
without it, but simply because of a belief that he is not in 
danger of death or of a fear that reception betokens the certainty 


22 Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 321. 

23 9) C. S. Off., 27 Jul. 1892 ad 1—Coll. 8. C. P. F., n. 1808. 

24 §. 0. P. F., 10 Maii, 1898—A. S. S., XXXI, 320; Cf, Amer, Eccl, 
Review, XX, p. 506. 

25 Tanquerey, Th. D., Ill, 784, 


232 Extreme Unction 


of death.2® In such eases it should be investigated what inten- 
tion would prevail if the truth were known. This can generally 
be deduced from the willingness or refusal of the patient to co- 
operate in the other aids of religion. It will be discovered 
that the intention of receiving the sacrament regularly predom- 
inates.°7 

The question may arise of the procedure to be taken in the 
ease where a man, known to be in mortal sin, declares that 
he is contrite yet refuses to go to confession before receiving 
Extreme Unction. Can the refusal of a man to confess himself 
be regarded as a sign of contumacious perseverance in sin? 


There is, of course, a divine precept, whereby all in mortal 
sin are bound to receive the sacrament of Penance if in dan- 
ger of death.28 Yet it is easily seen, especially in lingering 
illnesses and where death is not extremely close, that such 
confession can be made subsequently to the unction and not 
necessarily prior thereto.”9 


But what of the rubric of the Ritual, found even in the 
new edition: ‘‘In quo illud in primis ex generali Eeclesiae con- 
suetudine observandum est ut, si tempus et infirmi condicio 
permittat, ante Extremam Unctionem, Poenitentiae et Eucharis- 
tiae Sacramentae infirmis praebeantur?’’ °° Similarly, the Cate- 
ehism of the Couneil of Trent instructs us: ‘‘Servanda est 
Catholicae Ecclesiae perpetua consuetudo, ut ante extremam 


26. Cf. Berardi, Prax. Conf., II, n. 5003; Cf. Amer. Eecl. Review, LX, 
pp. 572-3. 

27 Cf. Noldin, De Sac., 41. 

28 Genicot-Salmans, Inst. Th. M., If, 231. 


29 Indeed, some authors hold that if there is only time to receive one 
or the other sacrament, it is permissible to choose Extreme Unction, 
despite the divine command to confess one’s sins (cf. Telch, Epitome 
Th. M., p. 301; Noldin, De Sac., n. 444—for the opposite opinion, 
see Suarez, d. 44, s. 1, nn. 9-10). In such a case, Extreme Unction 
effects all that Penance accomplishes plus many mighty results 
peculiar to itself. The case in practice hardly seems likely. If it 
is a question of receiving one sacrament or the other before lapsing 
into unconsciousness, it seems wiser to select Penance first, for Ex- 
treme Unction can be given absolutely to those in unconsciousness, 
according to the prescriptions of the next canon. 


80 zit. V., cap. 1, n. 2, 


Denial to Impenitents 233 


unetionem, poenitentiae et eucharistiae sacramentum adminis- 
tretar;;’**? 


Furthermore, some theologians like Gury ** and Billuart oy 
prescribe confession previous to Unction for those in mortal 
sin because the latter is the complement of the former. 


In the face of all these reasons can and must a man physi- 
eally able to confess his sins be compelled, under threat of 
refusal of Extreme Unction, to receive the sacrament of Penance 
first, even though he asserts he has contrition for his sins? 
Clericatus °4 insists that it is certainly not permissible to anoint 
without prior confession, ‘‘praesertim si in dla infirmitate 
ipsemet infirmus non fuerit confessus peccata sua; .... nam 
si effectus sacramenti est, inter alios, augere gratiam, quomodo 
augebitur ista gratia in eo qui nullam gratiam habet, imo obicem 
habet ad illam recipiendam?’’ 

Extreme Unction, it is true, is primarily a sacrament of 
the living, and consequently requires the state of grace. But 
the state of grace can be gained as well by perfect contrition 
cum voto Poenitentiae as by the sacrament of Penance with 
simple attrition. In this lies the falsity of Clericatus’ reasoning, 
for he evidently presupposes that the state of grace can only be 
attained thru the reception of Penance. Sacraments of the 
living per se do not require previous confession by those who 
are in mortal sin. Per accidens confession may be required by 
specific legislation. 


The Council of Trent®® demanded that confession be maae 
prior to Communion alone. Now, it is to be noted that the 
Ritual requires not only the reception of Penance, but also 


31 De Ext. Unct., n. 12. Cf. the law promulgated by the Synod of 
Chartres held in 1526: ‘‘Cum hoc sacramentum fit ultimum sacra- 
mentorum, inhibemus illud dari infirmo, nisi post Confessionem pecca- 
torum suorum et post Corporis Christi Communionem, si possibile est 
infirmum communicare.’’ (apud Nat. Alex., Th. D. et M., lib. IT, 
‘‘De Extr. Unct.,’’ cap. Il, reg. 21). 

St. Charles Borromeo similarly prescribed confession prior to the 
administration of Extreme Unction. (Instructiones de Eat. Unct., 
capite inscripto, ‘‘Quae praeparatio ad Extremae Uncttonis sacra- 
mentum adhibenda’’—apud Acta Eccl. Mediol., pars IV, tom. I, p. 
604). 

32 Comp. Th. M., II, 693. 

33 Summa S. Thomae, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ disp. unic, a. 7 in fine, 

84 Decis. Sac., De Ext. Unot., dec. 80, nn. 1, 2, 3, 

85 Sess, XIII, De Euch., can. 11. 


234. Extreme Unction 


that of the Eucharist. Hence it might be argued—and not 
unreasonably—that Penance is required before Extreme Unction 
by strict precept, not by reason of the Unction but rather by 
reason of the Eucharist. | 

But even preseinding from the force of this argument, 
theologians do not demand that Penance be received necessarily 
before Extreme Unction may be administered. O’Kane says 
simply: ‘‘In strictness, no doubt, it suffices that he (the sub- 
ject) elicit an act of contrition before Extreme Unction.’’® In 
like manner St. Alphonsus writes: ‘‘Licet autem, per se loquendo, 
confessio non necessario praemittatur, cum per contritionem se 
disponere possit’’ &¢.37 Vermeersch-Creusen °° declares: ‘*Ut 
sacramentum hoe cum fructu recipiat, debet infirmus qui conscius 
sit peccati mortalis vel confiteri ante quam ungatur vel perfecte 
conteri si possit. Existimata igitur contritio sufficit, immo 
serius conatus contritionis, si copia confessionis non datur, 
dummodo habeatur attritio.”’ 

Suarez ® treats the question at some length—and, although 
admitting the possibility of an oblgation from some other 
source, concludes that per se it is not necessary to confess before 
being anointed. He cites an example of one who fell into mortal 
sin after he had received Penance and Viaticum but before the 
reception of Extreme Unction. Although recommending a con- 
fession whether the sin be occult or public, he, nevertheless, 
asserts the sinlessness of receiving unction without previous 
confession—provided always, of course, that the subject has 
contrition cum voto Poenitentiae and that there is no danger 
of his dying without a later opportunity to confess. 

Kixamples may be cited when a man would refuse to go 
to confession before the bestowal of Extreme Unction. By some 
caprice or even from good reason he may dislike the pastor 
(who has, be it remembered, the sole right to give Extreme 
Unetion). As a consequence, the man insists that another priest 
be summoned from some distance, in order that he may make 
his confession to him. While the confessor is on his way to 
the sick man, the pastor may deem it advisable to administer 
36 The Rubrics, n. 850. 

387 Th. M., VI, 716. Cf. also Lehmkuhl, Casus Consc., II, 664. 
38 Howt., II, 226. 
89 D, 44, s, 1, nn. 9-10; cf, also Diana, Op, Coord., t. II, tr, 4, res, 23, 


Denial to Impenitents 235 


Extreme Unction. The lawfulness of this administration seems 
hardly questionable. Another case would be had when the 
priest who administers Uncetion is a relative to whom the patient 
would feel much embarrassment in confessing. Then, too, it 
would be reasonable to accept the sacrament by preparing one’s 
soul with contrition, coupled with the intention of receiving 
‘Penance later. 


There are some theologians who assert that such an inversion 
of the sacraments is not a mortal sin, thus probably implying 
that it cannot be done without some blame. E. g., Barbosa ?° 
says: ‘‘Credo non esse peccatum mortale conferre Sacramentum 
Extremae Unctionis infirmo antequam susceperit Sacramentum 
Poenitentiae et Eucharistiae, quia infirmus potest per contriti- 
onem se disponere ad suscipiendum hoe sacramentum, tum 
quia aliquando fieri potest, ut quis recipere possit Extremam 
Unctionem, non vero Poenitentiam, vel Eucharistiam, ut quando 
aliquis patitur vomitum, aut ita repente morbor praevenitur, ut 
non dederit signa Sacramenti Poenitentiae.’’ 


Yet if there is present a reasonable cause, as in the examples 
cited above, it is hard to see how such an inversion is any 
sin at all. Venial obligations do not bind under serious in- 
convenience; any just cause suffices to release the binding force 
of the law. 


It should be noted that it cannot be argued from the letter 
of Innocent I to Decentius:*! that previous confession is neec- 
essary. ‘‘Nam poenitentibus istud infundi non potest, quia 
genus est sacramenti. Nam quibus reliqua sacramenta negantur, 
quomodo unum genus putatur posse coneedi?’’ Innocent was 
speaking of public penitents, who, while doing penance for 
their sins, were forbidden participation in the sacraments until 
their period of penance was completed. 


The conclusion is that per se a penitent does not have to 
preface the reception of Extreme Unction with sacramental con- 
fession. It is sufficient that he be contrite for his sins and that 
there be no danger that he will die before fulfilling the divine 
precept of confessing in danger of death. As Lehmkuhl puts it: 


eum. cf rot. tar.,,p. ll, ic; XXITT on, 57, 
Srey, .10 tier, 416-——O..J..C.. Fontes, n, 19, 


236 Extreme Unction 


Ante Extremam Unctionem aut confessio aut perfecta contritio 
per se fiat a quolibet qui gravis peccati reus sit.’”* 

Hence a priest cannot demand prior confession under pen- 
alty of withholding the sacraments—nor is he obliged to do this 
by the rubrie. ‘‘Si enim,’’ Suarez #8 writes, ‘‘poenitens ad id non 
tenetur, unde obligabitur sacerdos, si videat signa contritionis 
et propositum confessionis, absque morali periculo moriendi sine 
illa, et praesertim si aliqua rationabilis causa oceurrat differendi 
confessionem, ne videlicet detur hie et nune aliqua occasio mani- 
festandi peecatum vel quid simile? Prudentiae igitur sacerdotis 
hoc relinquendum est, ut et confessionem praemitti procuret, si 
commode potest, et non nimium molestus sit, sed credat imfirmo 
suam contritionem ostendenti.’’ 

Since, therefore, the refusal to confess prior to the recep- 
tion of Extreme Unction cannot be construed as a sign of im- 
penitence, in such cases where signs of contrition are exhibited, 
a priest wrongly deprives a man of this sacrament by declining 
to administer it in such a ease. 


The question may arise, however, with regard to a man 
bound by an excommunication or personal interdict. Is prior 
confession demanded of him? Such persons are prohibited by 
law from a reception of the sacraments.** In such an extreme 
time as the danger of death, however, the absolution from these 
censures can be given in both fora by any priest, if the con- 
tumacy has been broken.*® Accordingly, even in this case, the 
priest cannot insist upon confession as a means to absolution 
from the censure; nor can he take a refusal to confess as a 
certain sign of impenitence. He can impart absolution in the 
external forum, and pave the way by this to an administration 
of Extreme Unction.*® 


From this discussion, it ean be seen that obstinate impeni- 
tence in manifest grievous sin is not an easy thing of which 
to convict aman. Yet it alone will justify a complete denial of 
Extreme Unction. Every condition must be rigidly fulfilled; 


420TH. iM jell, 712. 

cS RP © ee ea a1 Pee? fe BA 

44 Can. 2260, 1; 2275, 2. 
45 Can. 2252. 

46 Cf. Can. 2251. 


Denial to Impemtents 237 


and the slightest probability warrants a conditional administra- 
tion. 

When all the requisites for denial are surely present, how- 
ever, it is a grave sin to confer the sacrament. ‘‘Constat fore 
peceatum grave,’’ Suarez states, ‘‘dare sacramentum homini 
habenti obicem et nullo modo, i. e., nee expresse nec implicite nec 
interpretative petenti sacramentum et salutis suae remedium, 
saltem per signa attritionis aut bonae vitae.’ ’*! 

When men are conscious, little trouble will be experienced 
practically in determining the dispositions of their souls. Gen- 
erally, it will be easily discernible whether they are shrinking 
from the sacraments because of a natural fear of death or from 
hardness of heart. 

In the ease of a man destitute of his senses, a priest is 
liable to be troubled with many scruples about the state of 
soul of the patient. If the man is discovered unconscious and 
the priest has no knowledge whatsoever of his condition of soul, 
there should be at least a conditional administration of the 
sacrament. In such an instance nothing certain is known— 
and consequently the conditions required by the canon for 
absolute denial of the sacrament are not fulfilled. 

Two other cases may give some trouble to a priest zealous 
for souls, yet equally desirous of protecting the sanctity of the 
sacraments. The first is that of the man stricken down to 
unconsciousness in the very act of grievous sin. The second is 
that of the man who obstinately refuses the sacraments up to 
the very moment of unconsciousness. 

In regard to the former ease, it may be said that theologians 
sinee the time of La Croix and Alphonsus have allowed the 
conditional administration of Extreme Unction to such a subject. 
A few dissenting voices have been heard, especially those of the 
commentators on the rubrics. These men, it must be confessed, 
were faced with a rubric far different in phraseology than. the 
one found in the latest edition of the Ritual. Baruffaldo,** was 
so impressed by the express wording of the rubric that. he 
discarded in its favor the opinions of very weighty theologians. 
‘Hoe non obstante,’’ he writes, ‘‘textus noster clare loquitur, 


47 PD. 42, s. 1, n. 8. 
48 Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., t. I, tit. xxvii, n. 76. 


238 Extreme Unction 


prohibens talem administrationem, qui textus cum per consensum 
Keelesiae Universalis sanecitus sit est magis attendendus quam 
opinio doctorum licet classicorum.’? O’Kane,*® too, though ad- 
mitting the external probability of the opposite opinion, states 
that the wording of the rubric would seem to deny a man in 
this situation the aids of the unetion. Berardi,®® likewise, 
queries: If these cases are not meant by the rubrie of the 
Ritual, ‘‘de quibusnam Rituale loqueretur ?’’ 

Since the revision of the Ritual’s rubrics, such an argument 
from the text of the Ritual is altogether inadmissible. The pres- 
ent rubric uses the identical terminology of the Code, thus de- 
stroying all the value of the reasoning from such a souree. The 
former rubric divided into distinet classes impenitents and 
those dying in manifest mortal sin. The Code speaks of only 
one class, viz., those who are contumaciously impenitent in 
manifest mortal sin. 

Moreover, theologians of the past and the present admit 
a conditional administration in these eases. A host of authorities 
can be adduced. Hear Lehmkuhl, for instance: 


‘*Ti quos sumi licet catholice voluisse mori excludi non debent 
ab Extrema Unctione: 1) si sensibus destituti reperiuntur, ets: parum 
christiane vixerint; 2) neque si in ipso actu peecati, signo poeni- 
tentiae non manifestato, sensibus destituuntur: quibus quamquam 
S. Eucharistia danda non est, tamen cum condicionata absolutione 
Extrema Unctio omnino concedenda est. Nam si forte internum 
actum miser peccator habuit, longe tutius, immo certo ejus salus 
procurabitur per unctionem, per absolutionem valde dubie. Atque 
etiam quando sine justa dispositione, dummodo valide, Extremam 
Unctionem homo sensibus destitutus suscepit, postea per actum attri- 
tionis fortasse sacramenti effectum atque aeternam salutem conse- 
quetur,’’51 


And Tamburini: 


‘‘Hue pertinent peccatores ... si post peccatum commissum, 
v. g., post duellum, tempus superfuit, quo vulneratus poenitere po- 
tuit, praesumendum esse, saltem per attritionem poenituisse, nisi con- 
trarium clare constet, quod certe clare constare difficile est. Quare si 
sit a sensibus alienatus, unde non possit nec conteri nec sacramentalem 


49 The Rubrics, n. 864. 
50 Prag. Conf., II, n. 5004. Other theologians who would deny the sacra- 
ment in these cases are Concina (Theol. Christ., vol. X, ‘‘De Ect. 


Unet.,’’ dis. I, ec. IV, n. 5), and Seavini (Th. M., III, 440 ad 4). 
51 Th. M., II, 724. 


Demal to Impentents 239 


absolutionem cum attritione suscipere, erit regulariter per Extremam 
Unctionem reficiendus, quia regulariter praesumitur attritus, et non 
potest de statu actuali peccati constare.’’52 


To these names can be added the great authority of ha 
Croix,®? St. Alphonsus,>4 Clericatus,®®> Diana,°* Konings,°* 
Ballerini-Palmieri,®® Rohling,®® Aertnys,®° Kern,®' Vermeersch- 
Creusen®? and Genicot-Salsmans.®* Consequently without the 
slightest seruple the priest should proceed to anoint those who 
have been rendered unconscious in the very act of sin. Hence 
1) those shot in adultery, burglary, &c.; 2) those wounded m 
a duel, a brawl, a riot; 3) those found unconscious after an 
attempt to commit suicide °*—and all other similar eases—will 
permit of a conditional ministration of the sacrament to the 
subject. Such people may at least have made an act of attrition 
in the fraction of time which they had of consciousness before 
their wound robbed them of their senses. 

Teich ® makes an exception to the above rule. He denies 
the permissibility of anointing those dying in complete drunk- 
enness which is gravely sinful. Those perfectly drunk commit 
mortal sin by drinking until they have lost the use of their 
reason—and having lost it, they are incapable, for the time 
being at least, of any act of sorrow. 

St. Alphonsus °° and La Croix ®™ say that a conditional 
administration can be made when it is not certain that such a 
man is in mortal sin. And, in truth, it is difficult to say with 
finality that any case of perfect drunkenness is seriously sinful, 
as Konings °° indicates. ‘‘Id vero,’’ he writes, “‘tune tantum 


52 Th. M., lib. VI, c. 2, paragr. 4, n. 2. 

538 Th. M., lib. VI, p. 11, n. 2110. 

fierhoM., VIA732. 

55 Decis. Sacramentales, dee. 80, ‘‘De Extr. Unct.,’’ nn. 5-6. 
56 Op. Coord., tom. I; tr. IV, res. 60. 

57 Th. M., n. 1508, q. 8. 

58 Op. Th. M., vol. V, tr. X, sec. VI, n. 32. 

59 Medulla, p. 380. 

SU ee 2 11, 36792. 

61 Tract. de Ext. Uncet., p. 322. 

62 Hpit., II, 226. 

63 Inst. Th. M., II, 423. 

64 Cf. Amer. Eccl. Review, LVII, p. 433; LVIII, p. 80. 
65 Hpit. Th. M., pp. 294-5. 

66 Th. M., VI, 732. 

Sethe At. ibe V 1p. 11, n. 2110. 

68 Th. M., page 421, note 30. 


240 Extreme Unction 


constare videtur quando evidens est ipsum sese ex proposito 
perfecte inebriasse: id vero, in casw solitariae inebriationis via 
evidens esse poterit: poterit vero, si agitur de illis ebriosis, qui 
usque ad finem vitae in consuetudine hujus viti notorve per- 
severarunt.’? Usually it can be said that it is far from clear 
whether a man has deliberately made himself totally intoxicated. 
There is generally the probability that he misjudged his powers 
in regard to the quantity of liquor he could consume without — 
losing totally his use of reason. 

Some theologians are even more lenient. They go as far 
as to allow anointing even when the drunkenness was certainly 
gravely sinful. Thus Lehmkuhl® directs an administration— 
conditional, of course—‘‘licet culpabiliter se inebriasset |[sub- 
jectum],’’ adding that it must be given ‘‘a fortiori’? when it is 
not clear whether the intoxication is culpable or not. Rohling ‘° 
conecords in this very merciful view. This practice may be fol- 
lowed, for it can be truly said that it is never known whether 
the drunken stupor has subsided sufficiently to allow some little 
use of the reason, thus making the possibility of at least some 
kind of attrition quite tenable. 

Arguing a pari it can be said that Extreme Unetion can 
be administered to those who fall into insanity while in the act 
of sin or (as shall be seen presently) while refusing the sacra- 
ments. With some truth it can be presumed that they have 
elicited an internal act of attrition. Insanity differs from un- 
consciousness, it is true. It takes away the use of reason, while 
the latter takes away only the use of the senses. However, it 
can be presumed that the insanity did not overtake the man 
in such a speedy fashion that he did not have at least a moment 
in which to repent. 


It might, indeed, be asked how a priesti can conscientiously 
give a sacrament of the living to a man whose attrition (and 
even his intention) is very little more than a possibility. The 
answer lies in the old axiom: ‘‘In extremis extrema tentanda 
sunt.’? The sanetity of the sacrament is safeguarded by the 
conditional administration; and the eternal welfare of the sub- 
ject similarly protected. There is no new sin on the part of 


69 Casus Consc., II, n. 665. 
70 Medulla, p. 380. 


Denial to Impemtents 241 


the subject in thus receiving it, because his unconscious state 
makes him incapable of sin as long as it lasts. On the other 
hand, the huge advantage gained by the patient is worth the 
inconvenience caused by administration to those who are so 
very dubiously disposed for its reception.” 


The second case that must be considered is that of a man 
who has up until the very moment of unconsciousness refused 
the sacraments explicitly or equivalently, i. e., by a positive 
refusal to do something demanded of him under pain of mortal 
sin. Thus a man may refuse to give up a wife married to 
him only civilly, while his first wife is still living, or a woman 
in harlotry may refuse to promise a relinquishment of her trade 
upon recovery, &e. In such eases, while the patient is still 
conscious, the priest can surely do nothing in the way of ad- 
ministering sacraments. 


When the use of the senses is gone, however, the question 
is somewhat different. Testimonies of medical men and of ex- 
perience have proven the capability of the reason to function, 
even though externally there seems to be no rational activity. 
In such a ease it is not improbable that a change of dispositions 
might take place. Theologians are very much divided on this 
question. Many would deny all administration until some 
doubtful signs, at least, of penitence have been shown. 


The ancient statutes of the Church of Troyes, together 
with the Ritual, forbade Extreme Unction to those who were 
excommunicated or of a notoriously bad life, giving as the 
reason: ‘‘Si semel malus, semper praesumitur malus, nisr 
probetur contrarium.’’™ Kern, too, will not allow this bestowal 
of the sacrament :— 


‘¢Sane excesserunt theologi qui docebant, Extremam Unctionem 
ob reverentiam sacramenti denegandam esse omnibus qui actu non 
fruuntur usu rationis. Sed pejus excedunt qui, nulla habita ratione 
sanctitatis sacramenti, attentant illud conferre omnibus qui mentis 
non sunt compotes. . . . Quod spectat adagia commemorata, sacra- 
menta certe sunt pro hominibus, sed danda tantum iis quos non 
esse indignos prudenter existimatur. In extrema necessitate omnia 


sunt tentanda, quae sanctitas mysteriorum et praecepta Ecclesiae per- 


71 Cf. Suarez, d. 42, s. 1, n. 10; Tamburini, Th. M., TD Vig ae he) 
paragr. 4, n. 4. 
72 Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 509. 


242 Extreme Unction 


mittunt. Si moriturus, qualem descripsimus (i. e., Catholicus qui 
Ecclesiam non deseruit at fidem abjecit et hostilem contra religionem 
animum gessit, vel saltem qui omnibus exercitiis religionis abjectis, 
curam salutis penitus neglexit), ante exitum eliciat actum attritionis 
tantum, manifesto non salvabitur, etiamsi sit inunctus. Sacramentum 
enim invalidum ob defectum intentionis in subjecto per nullum ejus 
actum subsequentem evadit validum. Igitur conetur sacerdos tales 
infirmos juvare unico medio quod superest; implorando pro illis 
infinitam misericordiam Dei, qui eos, si vult, etiam sine ritu sacra- 
mentali ab interitu vindit¢are valet.’ ’73 


When confronted with the objection that such a one may 
have by chance made a merely internal act of attrition before 
he had been completely bereft of consciousness, and would, thru 
the administration of Extreme Unction be assured of his salva- 
tion, Kern replies :— 

‘“Peribit propria culpa, sacerdos autem suae obligationi satis- 
fecit, quia mera possibilitas sufficientis dispositionis non fundat 
prudens judicium, de facto adesse, quae ex parte subjecti requiruntur. 
Si illa mera possibilitas existentiae necessariae dispositionis suf- 
ficeret, omnes Judaei morituri et sui non amplius conscii recte bap- 
tizarentur; forte enim, antequam mente penitus exciderunt, internum 
actum attritionis et desiderii Baptismi habuerunt.’’74 | 


In like manner Tanquerey,” Baruffaldo,“® Lehmkuhl,” 
Noldin,’® Berardi” and a writer in the American Ecclesiastical 
Review °° would forbid such an administration. Telech ®! adds 
his authority to these, with the remark that occult miracles of 
grace cannot be a norm for the administration of the sacraments. 

Despite this array of authority, there can be found as many, 
if not more, theologians who advocate the more merciful side. 
Too often unconsciousness is considered to be present, when a 
man is unable to manifest any sign by physical motion. The 
soul can be active, despite the inability to express such activity 
externally. Very frequently, too, though persons are apparently 


3 Tract. de Eat. Unct., pp. 319-20. 

4 Tract. de Ext. Unct.; p. 320. 

5 Th. D., III, 784 (e). 

6 Ad. Kom. Rit. Comm., tom. I, tit. 27, n. 76. 
COTA Mell e724! 

8 De Sac., 444. 

79 Praxis Conf. II n. 5004. 

80 Vol. LX, pp. 572-73. 

81 Hpit. Th. M., pp. 294-5, 


Denial to Impemtents 243 


destitute of their senses, it is simply extreme weakness which 
has prostrated them, and their rational life is still vigorous. 
Frequently, in these people the sense of hearing remains. Kx- 
perience itself taught Diana the truth of this and made him 
reverse his opinion on the permissibility of conferring unction 
on dying persons apparently unconscious. He had been seri- 
ously sick and had been bereft of all sensibility except hearing. 
Nevertheless he remained possessed of the use of reason and 
had the ability to make a true and firm judgment. Learning 
from the talk of the doctors and from his extreme weakness 
that he was near the end, he found himself able to commend 
his soul to the merey of God. He attempted to externalize his 
pious emotions, by signs, by breathing, &e., but the bystanders 
considered them only signs of suffering nature. 

‘Ab illo tempore,’’ Diana wrote,** “‘in animum induxi, 
quod si quovis modo aliquem Catholicum sic oppressum reci- 
perem nec signum aliquod mihi intelligibile poenitentiae dare 
posset; nihilominus sub eonditione absolverem, eo quod forte 
aliquod signum poenitentiae edat, etsi mihi ineognitum; cum 
(ut dixi) hoe fit charitatis, et conditio omnem defectum auferat, 
qui administratione sacramenti contingere posset.”’ 

If absolution can be given, it is to be noted that Extreme 
Unction can also be imparted. Thus Tanquerey declares: 
‘‘Quando aegrotus usu rationis gaudet, non potest licite ungl 
sine suo consensu; sed quando est sensibus destitutus, potest ung 
an omnibus easibus in quibus absolvi potest ; immo tutius est in 
hoc casu unctionem dare quam absolutionem, quia ad hane suf- 
ficit attritio interna, cum ad Paenitentiam requiritur valde pro- 
babiliter attritio signis sensibilibus manifestata.’’ 8° 

Conditional anointing in these cases appeals to Ballerini- 
Palmieri,8* Clericatus,*° Genicot,86 Rohling,’? Murphy ** and 
Piat.82 Vermeersch-Creusen °° denies the possibility of ascer- 


82 Op. Coord., tom. I, tract. IV, res. 65. 

83 Th. D., Ill, 784 Cf. also Bouvier, De Ext. Unet., ¢. 7, a. 3, 73 
O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 864, etc. 

84 Op. Th. M., vol. V, tr. X, sec. VI, n. 32. 

85 Decis. Sac., ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ decis. 80, nn. 5 & 6. 

86 Inst. Th. M., II, 423. 

87 Medulla, p. 380. 

88 Delinquencies and Penalties, pp. 21-22. 

89 Nouvelle Revue Theologique, XXXI, p. 482. 

99 Epit., II, 226. 


244 Extreme Unction 


taining with certainty the fact of contumacy in a person desti- 
tute of his senses. Sabetti-Barrett,®! though evidently inclined 
to the opposite opinion, would not condemn a priest who 
anointed a man that had spurned the sacraments ex contemptu 
up to the very moment of unconsciousness. 

Surely, then, there is sufficient external probability that 
even when a person perseveres in the state of sin and refuses the 
sacraments up until the moment of unconsciousness, he may be 
conditionally anointed. In practice, too, this should be done— 
although it is hard to say that there is an obligation on the 
priest to administer it. True, many authorities think it alto- 
gether unlawful, but surely, a man should not be deprived of 
the sacrament who may have made an act of imperfect con- 
trition and whose salvation rests upon the reception or non- 
reception of the sacrament.°? When Kern says that he perishes 
thru his own fault, he does not breathe the mercy of the Master. 
If the miserable sinner finds it hard while conscious to give up 
the ways of sin, and yet, at the very; last moment, though phys- 
ically prostrated, he summons enough courage to become attrite, 
it cannot be held that his failure to do so before merits for him 
eternal damnation. Everybody who perishes, perishes thru his 
own fault. Yet God gave the sacraments to save the attrite. 
Why should they not be imparted at a moment when, if ever 
they could do good, it will be just then? 


Telch’s argument that occult miracles of grace are not the 
norms of conferring the sacraments has not much face value. It 
ean easily be retorted that such final co-operation with grace 
smacks little of the miraculous. Sinners, finding themselves 
really going to die, often begin to fear hell and become attrite, 
yet they may not be able sensibly to express themselves. But 
even granting this, it can be said that even if only a miracle of 
grace could save the man, nevertheless, there is no profanation 
done to the sacrament because of the conditional administration. 


91 Th. M., p.-808. 

92 Cf. The Casuist, V, 232: ‘‘Where the worthy reception is in doubt 
the sacrament should be administered absolutely. This should be 
done unless it is positively certain that a person wills to die in 
his unbelief and unrepentance, and unreconciled with his God, which 
we may never assume with certainty of a person bereft of his senses, 
‘cum homines etiam pessimi et perditissimi in mortis confinia deducti 
serio salvart cupiant,’ ’’ 


Denial to Impenitents 245 


It must be remembered that in anointing in cases where a 
man is stricken down in the act of sin or when he has refused 
‘to have the sacraments up until the time of unconsciousness, 
great caution and prudence will be at all times necessary to pro- 
tect the faithful from scandal and from a loss of respect for the 
sacraments. In fact, this very reason is given as one of the 
arguments which opponents of this practice assert for the denial 
of the sacrament in such eases.%? 


In the latter case where the sacraments have been spurned, 
Genicot °4 advises that it will be wiser to abstain from unction 
until signs of penance appear, especially if many are aware of 
the circumstances of the case. However, if the priest, by a 
word or two of explanation, can effectually remove the scandal, 
he should make the admonition and proceed with a clear con- 
science. 


In no ease can Unction be given if scandal will result. The 
short form may be utilized if necessary to conceal the pro- 
ceedings from the bystanders. A deft anointing of the sick 
man’s hand ean very easily be accomplished without attracting 
any attention; and this is permissible by Canon 947. 


The condition to be attached to the administration of the 
sacrament in these cases wherein it is doubtful whether or not 
the subject is contumaciously persevering in manifest mortal 
sin will depend to a great extent upon the convictions of the 
priest. In the first place, however, the condition ‘‘si dispositus 
es’’ should never be appended. Such a condition would make 
the validity depend upon the dispositions of the subject at the 
time of reception. Consequently, if de facto he is not well-dis- 
posed, he is not anointed. ‘‘Disposttus’’ includes within its 
scope more elements than the law contemplates. A man actu 
in mortal sin is certainly not disposed; yet he is not excluded 
by the terminology of this canon. Only the contumaciously 
impenitent are to be denied the sacrament; yet there is a great 
chasm between those rightly disposed for reception and those 
who are obstinately impenitent. The inadequacy of the condi- 


93 Of. Telch. Epit. Th. M., pp. 294-5 and Berardi, Prax. Conf., II, n. 5004, 
‘94 Inst. Th. M., Il, 423, 


246 Extreme Unction 


tion ‘‘si dispositus es’? becomes apparent. Thus Kern writes: 

‘‘Hine illa regula pro praxi magni momenti, nunquam Extre- 
mam Unctionem esse ministrandam sub conditione: ‘si dispositus 
es.’ Si enim ista conditio adicitur et subjectum reipsa est fictum 
etsi materialiter tantum, nullum fit sacramentum, proinde quan- 
tumvis aegrotus postea, forte in momento tandem mortis, defectum 
corrigat, nullum amplius fructum salutaris mysterii nanciscitur. 
Caeterum haec regula non est propria Extremae Unctionis, sed valet 
etiam de aliis sacramentis quae possunt reviviscere.’’95 


Neither can a condition be attached which might allow a 
future reviviscence, as, for example, ‘‘Si es nune dispositus vel 
eris dispositus.’’ Future conditions are inadmissible except in 
the matrimonial contract. 


Those who hold that this anon regards primarily the inten- 
tion of the recipient teach that the administration must be made 
absolutely quoad dispositionem. If any condition is to be ap- 
pended, it must be concerned with an essential for validity, 1. e., 
the intention. At first blush it may seem a great irreverence to 
make an absolute administration (quoad dispositionem) to those 
evidently in mortal sin. Yet it must also be remembered that 
persons bereft of their senses cannot commit an actual sacrilege ; 
while the probability—or as a writer in the Casuist °° says, even 
the mere possibility—of a reviviscence is sufficient to warrant an 
unconditional administration without seruple. Noldin % notes 
that it is lawful to administer a sacrament to a man whose dis- 
positions are very dubious, not only when such a sacrament is 
the only means (medium unicum) of salvation, but also when 
its reception is highly advantageous to the subject. Accordingly, 
then, these theologians suggest the use of ‘‘st capax es,’’ for 
thereby the elements for validity are generally understood. 


Those who teach that this canon is concerned with the dis- 
positions of the patient are not agreed as to the exact formula 
to be employed in the condition. Pruemmer 88 and Mothon 
suggest ‘‘st capax es’’—probably understanding thereby ‘‘Si 


95 Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 375-6; cf. also Lehmkuhl, Th. M., II, 724 and 
cae Consc., IT, 665; Telch, Epit. Th. M., p. 300; Noldin, De Sac., 

96 vol. V, p. 231. 

97 De Sac., 445. 

98 ‘*The Recipient of Extreme Unction’’ in the Homiletic and Pastoral 
Review, XXVI (1926), p. 742. 

92 Institutions Canomques, II, p. 233, art. 2030, 


Denal to Impenitents 247 


capax es—ad normam juris.’’ Blat 1° recommends ‘‘Si non es 
impoenitens in mortali.’? A more correct formula would be ‘‘S2 
non es contumaciter impoenitens in mortali’’—for by it only 
those whom the canon wishes to be excluded would be denied the 
sacrament. In practice it may often be rather difficult to keep 
the various elements of this condition in mind. Since the con- 
dition need not be expressed, it may be advisable for a priest 
simply to intend the bestowal of the sacrament ‘“ad mentem 
Ecclesiae’’ or ‘‘ad normam juris.”’ 

Suppose that a person thus anointed when unconscious in 
the cases discussed above should regain consciousness and evi- 
dence a change of dispositions. Such a man may have been 
validly anointed—and yet there is room for much doubt. Repe- 
tition of the unction in the same danger of death is very prob- 
ably valid, yet certainly illicit. A second administration under 
the condition ‘‘Si capax es’? would still allow the possibility of 
a second valid unction in the same danger of death—against the 
prescriptions of Canon 940, 2. In order to keep within the law, 
it will be necessary to apply the oil in such a case under the con- 
dition ‘‘Si nondum es unctus.’’ 1°? 

It can easily be seen that if Extreme Unction may be im- 
parted in extreme cases such as the ones dealt with hitherto, it 
ean surely be permitted in the not infrequent instances of per- 
sons who have lived in little accord with Christian principles, yet 
without showing themselves hostile to religion. These men may 
be presumed to desire to die in a Catholic fashion; and rarely 
can they be suspected of contumacious impenitence. Similarly, 
there can be little doubt about their intention of receiving the 
sacrament, and thus their valid capacity is unquestioned. To 
such men Extreme Unction should be given unconditionally, so 
that every opportunity can be afforded for reviviscence.1°” 

All the cases hitherto considered in this canon supposed 
that the dispositions of the sick man were known at least to the 
immediate family and attendants of the patient. The question 
may be asked about the procedure to be followed when the priest 


100 Comm. Tect., lib. III, p. I, n. 286. 

101 Vermeersch-Creusen, Epit., II, 226. 

102 Cf. Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 321-3; Casuist, vol. V, p. 228 sq.; 
Noldin, De Sac., 445; Lehmkuhl, Th. M., Il, 724; cf. also 8. C. 8, 
Off. 9 Maii, 1821—Collectanea, n, 757; infra. chap, vill, p. 


248 Extreme Unction 


‘alone knows of the absolute unworthiness of the sick man, and 
grave scandal will arise if the sacrament is refused. An inci- 
dent of this sort would occur if the priest were asked to confer 
Extreme Unction upon one who he knew through a consultation 
with the physician was about to undergo an illicit operation oe- 
eultly. A similar case would result if the priest on a visit pri- 
vately to the sick man, without the knowledge of the family 
(as could be done easily enough in a hospital), finds the patient 
unwilling to make restitution in a serious matter. Later he is 
summoned while the family is present. The sick man asks for 
the Unction. What is the priest to do? 

He has hardly any alternative. Here is an occult sinner 
seeking a sacrament publicly. He cannot be denied it, even at 
the expense of the sanctity of the sacrament. Should the priest 
desert the sick man in this case, he would bring defamation upon 
the patient, accusations against himself and fears to the faith- 
ful that they might be repulsed from the sacraments. All these 
considerations compel the priest to proceed in the anointment 
of this unworthy subject. 

A finai instance is that of the unworthiness of the sick man 
known only from the seal of confession. A priest is summoned 
to attend a sick man. The attendants escort the priest to the sick 
room and retire so that the patient’s confession can be heard. 
The sick man refuses to do something which requires a denial 
of absolution by the priest. The confession over, the attendants 
come in—and await the anointing. The sick man himself says 
nothing. Again there is no escape for the priest. What he 
knows swb sigillo is not his knowledge. The sick man is seeking 
the sacrament, even by his very silence. The identical considera- 
tions, danger of scandal, loss of reputation to the sick man, 
fears of the faithful, etc., apply also in this case as well as in 
the above circumstances. Consequently, the priest should bestow 
the Unetion without hesitation. 

Even if the sacrament were sought occultly by such a man, 
a priest should administer it. Unworthiness known only from 
the seal of confession is not enough to refuse the sacraments to 
an occult sinner, even when occultly seeking them. 


103 Cf. Noldin, De Sac., 36-7; Genicot-Salsmans, Th. M., II, 122-3. 
104 Cf. Genicot-Salsmans, Th, M., If, 122 & 392; Cappello, De Sac., I, 70, iv. 


etc 


CHAPTER VIII. 


3 ADMINISTRATION TO THE UNCONSCIOUS 


CANON 943. 


Infirmis autem, qui, cum suae mentis compotes es- 

sent, illud saltem implicite petierunt, aut verisimiliter 

| petiissent, etiamsi deinde sensus vel usum rationis ami- 
-serint, nihilominus absolute praebeatur. 


| 249 ] 


. 


s 





CHAPTER VIIL. 


All the sacraments, with the very probable exception of the 
Eucharist, demand from those who have attained the age of rea- 
son an habitual intention, at least, of receiving them. The ab- 
sence of such an intention completely frustrates the administra- 
tion of the sacrament and nullifies its effects. It is an essential 
element to its valid confection. 

Neither an actual nor even a virtual intention is required in 
the recipient. An habitual intention is eminently sufficient.’ 
Such an intention consists in an act of the will once made and 
never since retracted, yet not adverted to at the time of recep- 
tion and in no way flowing into or determining the act of the 
recipient.? 

Nor is it required for Extreme Unction that this habitual 
intention be explicit, that is, an express act of the will to receive 
this particular sacrament. It is quite enough if it be implicit, 
or in other words, contained in some action with which the will 
of not receiving it cannot accord. 

Intention is, of course, an internal thing; and its presence 
is known only by some external revelation or manifestation. This 
need not be by direct statement of the subject; other actions ac- 
complish this equally as well. Thus a Catholic who, by frequent 
reception of the sacraments and by compliance with the Church’s 
laws, exemplifies his faith has certainly the intention of receiv- 
ing the last sacraments and of dying as a Catholic should. In 
this instance the intention of the man is habitual and is inter- 
nally explicit, although its external manifestation can be called 
only implicit. On the other hand a man may habitually have 
the intention and even openly declare his willingness, of per- 
forming everything required for salvation, yet at the same time 


1 Some authors contest this in regard to Penance and Matrimony; but 
other authors of great weight teach the absolute sufficiency of an 
habitual intention—cf. Genicot-Salsmans, Th. M., II, 125; Noldin, 
De Sac., 41. However, such a dispute is beside the question here, as 
it does not regard Extreme Unction. 

2 Genicot-Salsmans, l.c.; Noldin, lc. 


[ 251 ] 





252 Extreme Unction 


know little or nothing about Extreme Unetion and from ignor- 
ance may even reject it. Such a man has the implicit intention 
of receiving the Unetion and has explicitly manifested his inter- 
nal intention. Finally, one may have internally an implicit m- 
tention of doing all required for salvation without, however, 
making a specific act of the will in regard to Extreme Unction. 
Suppose that this man has revealed his implicit intention only 
equivalently, and not explicitly, e. g., by living up to the best 
hghts of his conscience. Thereby he shows that he has an 
umplicit habitual intention of receiving the unction. It is wrong 
to call such an intention interpretative, if by that we mean an 
intention which would be present if certain other conditions 
existed or other facts were known. An intention of such kind 
does not really exist at all nor did it ever exist. Here the inten- 
tion of receiving Extreme Unction is actually resident implicitly 
in the general intention of doing all that is necessary or ex- 
tremely useful or beneficial in the time of death. It is thus 
seen that, although there is a close connection between an in- 
tention and its manifestation, nevertheless they are two quite dif- 
ferent things. This will be of great benefit in understanding 
the phraseology of this canon. 

It is not enough, consequently, to have no intention at all, to 
hold one’s self passive to an administration. Neither is a his- 
trionic reception valid. There is required some positive act of 
the will in regard to reception, either in a particular or in a gen- 
eral sense.? 

The words of this canon refer strictly, not to the presence 
of the intention, but to its externalization in the form of a peti- 
tion or request for the sacrament. When this is made, the min- 
ister is certain about the existence of intention. 

In the older rituals it was very often. required that the sick 
man specifically ask for the Unction before it could be conferred. 
This was demanded, not only that a sufficient intention of re- 
ceiving the sacrament might be revealed, but to comply in the 
most literal sense with the Jacobean prescription: ‘‘Inducat 


8 Ct. Noldin, De Sac., 41: De Lugo, De Sac. in Gen., disp. 9, s. fog Bem fe Vie 
ue also ieee S. Off, 10 Maii, 1703—Quebec. eid VILL, Collectanea, 
‘Peoeat 10 Apr. 1861— —Tchely Meridio-Orientalis—ad é Collectanea, 

D. 


Administration to the Unconscious 253 


presbyteros Eeclesiae.’’ Thus the Codex Ratholdus contained 
the following ceremony : 

‘<TIncipit Ordo Unctionis Infirmi. Hic dicat sacerdos ad in- 

firmum: ‘Quid me avocasti frater?’? Tle ait: ‘Ut mihi unctionem 


tradas.’ Dicit sacerdos ad eum: ‘Donet tibi Dominus noster J. C. 
veram facilemque unctionem,’’’ &c.4 


Ancient legislation to this effect is also found Adlfricus, the 
Bishop of the Angles, inserted in his canons: “‘Nemo praesumat 
eum ungere nisi exoratus.’’® 


Daniel, bishop of Nantes, made a similar rule. Moved to 
drastic action because of the doleful negligence of the sick in 
regard to the sacraments, he drew up and promulgated the fol- 
lowing enactment: 


‘‘Nos tantis animarum periculis, quantum possumus, occurrere 
cupientes in virtute sanctae obedientiae, omnibus Capellanis et Cura- 
tis nostrarum civitatis et dioecesis, eorumque subcapellanis prae- 
cipimus et mandamus ut singulis diebus Dominicis parochianos suos 
sollicite moneant et hortentur, ut statim atque in lecto jacuerint, 
Sacramenta Ecclesiastica petant.’’6 


In the sixteenth century local rituals abound, which con- 
tain the prescription that the priest be summoned at least by 
those in charge of the sick. Thus the Ritual of Toul, edited in 
1559, reads as follows: 


‘Ordo ad visitandum infirmum. Imprimis interrogetur si petat 
sacramentum ultimae Unctionis, et si in fide velit illud recipere. 
Respondeat: ‘volo.’ ’’7 


Similarly, the Church of Mende placed in its ritual the ru- 
bric: ‘‘Est notandum quod non datur nisi petentibus verbo vel 
signo.’’® Directions of this kind were found in very many other 


4 Daniel, Codex Litugicus, tom. I, p. 310; Cf. also the ‘‘interrogatio’’ of 
the Codex Remigio-Remensis, which is not quite as explicit as this 
(apud De Sainte-Beuve, De Ext. Unct., disp. VIII, a. 1—apud Migne, 
Curs. Theol. Comp., vol. XXIV, col. 127). 

5 N. 32—M. P. L., 139, 1475. 

6 Launoi, op. cit., p. 507. 

7 Launoi, l.c. 

8 Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 557. This ritual was published in 1030. 


254 Extreme Unction 


places where local rituals were in use.® Thus, it will be noted 
that a widespread custom insisting upon the external expression 
of an implicit intention by the patient was in vogue. 


It was permitted, nevertheless, to confer the sacrament on 
those who had requested it in signs or in words, but who lost 
the use of reason or of their senses before the arrival of the 
priest. The Sixth Provincial Council of Beneventum in 13874 
directed this manner of procedure: ‘‘Unde nullus ungendus 
est, nisi qui primo compos mentis existens, verbis aut signis id 
postulaverit ... Si vero infirmus, qui petit hoc sacramentum, 
amiserit notitiam vel loquelam, nihilominus dum tamen vitam 
habeat coneedatur eidem.’’ 1° 


In the newer discipline, especially since the seventeenth 
century, no such legislation is found. The rubric of the Ritual 
before the latest revision did not demand the explicit petition 
of the sacrament. Signs of sorrow were quite sufficient.1 


Neither does the present canon demand the formal and ex- 
plicit seeking of the former days. Rightly so, for the ‘‘petitio’’ 
is simply the external manifestation of the sick man’s intention. 
The intention can be present in all its vigor, even though there is 
no revelation of its existence made through outward sign or 
word. 


““Infirmis autem qui cum suae mentis compotes essent.’’ 


The phraseology of the canon does not signify that the peti- 
tion for the sacrament must be made only after the inception of 
the sickness. ‘‘Infirmis,’’ it is true, refers to the present status 
of the subject—but the preterite tense of ‘‘petterunt’’ evidences 
the validity of the act when done in past time. It is sufficient, 
therefore, that a man have shown at some time during his con- 


9 Launoi (l.c.) includes in his collection the following Rituals with this 
rubric: AKduensis (1523), Chartres (1489, 1544 & 1604), Périgueux 
(1505), St. Flour (1525), Rheims (1504 & 1530), Clermont (1518), 
Nimes (15335), Maguelone (1533), Troyes (1541 & 1573), Meaux 
(1542), Beauvais (1544), Verdun (1554), Limoges (1555), Uzés 
(1550), Langres (1573), Vienne (1577), Auscuensis (1602). 

10 Vit. 8, cap. 1—apud Catalano, Rom. Rit., t. I, p. 311. 

11 Tit. V, cap. 1, n. 6 (edit. 1918): ‘‘Infirmis autem qui, dum sana mente 
et integris sensibus essent, illud petierit, seu verisimiliter periisent 
seu dederint signa contritionis, etiamsi deinde loquelam amiserint, 
vel amentes effecti sint, vel delirent, aut non sentiant, nihilominus 
praebeatur.’’ 





Administration to the Unconscious 255 


scious life his desire to receive Extreme Unction when in danger 
of death. 


“‘Tilud saltem implicite petierunt.’’ 


It is easily deducible from this terminology that an habitual 
intention is sufficient for the recipient of Extreme Unction. 
Again ‘‘petierunt’’ presupposes the existence of an intention 
in the past—else how could there be a ‘‘petitio?’’? Ifa petition 
made in past time suffices, the intention which prompted it 1S 
similarly adequate. 

As noted before, the words of this canon speak of the mani- 
festation of the intention in the form of a petition for the sac- 
rament. The phrase ‘‘saltem implicite’’? implies the prefer- 
ability of an explicit petition. This would be had in the request 
of a man to receive Extreme Unetion specifically, if he should 
fall into danger of death from sickness. 

Yet this express and explicit petition is not necessary. Any 
implicit seeking of the sacrament suffices. Blat '* gives as an 
example the command of one to summon a priest when he is 
attacked by serious sickness. Any other externalized manifes- 
tation of intention, if not explicit, will fall in this category. 


“Aut verisimiliter petiissent.’’ 

There are some theologians who say that the phrasing here 
denotes the sufficiency of an interpretative intention.‘ Yet 
this is altogether an erroneous deduction. What the canon con- 
siders is an interpretative ‘‘petitio,’’ i. e., the externalization by 
the subject of his habitual intention, had he adverted to it. An 
interpretative intention is one which does not actually exist, 
but would exist if certain other facts or conditions had been 
known. On the other hand, an habitual intention de facto has 
existed, even though never revealed externally in a ‘*netitio.’’ 

The sacraments may be given to all who have at least an 
implicit habitual intention of receiving them. These people 
would petition the sacraments if they adverted to the usefulness 
of such a thing. Consequently, they are said to make an inter- 
pretative request for their administration. 


12 Comm. Tezt., lib. III, p. I, n. 287. 
13 Cf. O’Kane, The Rubrics, 862; Ferreres, Comp. Th. M., IU, 296: 


256 | Extreme Unction 


Such an interpretative ‘‘petitio’’ is always realized in the 
ease of those who have lived Catholic lives. ‘‘Qui enim Christi- 
anus est,’’ says De Lugo," ‘‘et vult in Eeclesia Catholica vivere 
et mori, vult etiam Ejus sacramenta debito tempore juvari: 
quam voluntatem Eeclesiam praesumit de omnibus qui signa 
poenitentiae suo tempore exhibuerunt.’’ And again:'® ‘‘ Homo 
Christianus ex vi illius voluntatis generalis vult quidem sumere 
sacramenta more Christiario, quando scilicet debito tempore 
Christianis dari solent, atque ideo habuit jam voluntatem acci- 
piendi Extremam Unectionem et Eucharistiam in mortis peri- 
culo.”’ 


Theologians are very generous in their allowance of what 
is required of the subject in order to furnish a basis for the pre- 
sumption of this interpretative petition. Thus Suarez says: 


‘*Ut autem susceptioni talis sacramenti consentire censeantur, 
satis est quod signa aliqua contritionis ediderint, vel quod quacum- 
que ratione probabili praesumantur esse dispositi ad sacramentum 
recipiendum, quoties contrarium non constat, quia qui malus non 
probatur, bonus esse praesumitur. Qui autem praesumitur contritus 
vel bene dispositus ad justificationem etiam credere habere, et revera 
habet virtute voluntatem suscipiendi illa media, quae hic et nune 
ad suam salutem vel necessaria sunt vel valde utilia, et haee voluntas 
sufficit ad valorem hujus sacramenti. .. [Sufficit ut] antequam aliquis 
amittat usum rationis, hoe sacramentum petierit, aut si meminisset, 
petiturus fuisset. Et in hoe sensu dicunt fere Doctores omnes, quod 
licet ad recipiendum hoe sacramentum necessaria sit intentio seu 
petitio recipientis, juxta illius Jacobi, 5: ‘Inducat presbyteros Ec- 
clesiae,’ non tamen semper sit formalis necessaria, sed virtualis seu 
interpretativa sufficiat.’’16 


Any one who has the intention of dying a Catholic makes 
at least an interpretative petition for the sacrament. It is not 
required that he have lived in exemplary fashion. Those who 
have not been always loyal in their obedience to the commands of 
God and His Church may still receive the sacrament, provided 
that it cannot be shown that they have done anything which 
would contradict their desire to die ‘‘in oseulo Domini ae intra 


14 De Sac. in Genere, disp. 9, s. 7, n. 122. 
15 L.c., n. 127. 
16 D, 42, s. 1, n. 6. 


Administration to the Unconscious 257 


Ecclesiam.’’ Indeed, as Benedict XIV 1” says, it must be pre- 
sumed that the faithful will desire this sacrament in the hour 
of death, unless there are clear and certain arguments to the 
contrary. Accordingly, all who would declare (although de facto 
they did not do so) that they would wish to die as Catholics, 
must be considered to have an habitual intention of receiving 
the sacrament, which, if possible, they would reveal by a petition 
for its administration. 


Missionaries in this country were concerned by many cases 
of men who were utterly careless of salvation. Though baptized 
with Catholic rites, some of them never had attended church 
since childhood. What could be done for these when they fell 
into a dangerous illness? The missionaries were very dubious 
as to the correct procedure, and hence the Holy See was asked: 


‘¢Qui consuetudinarii sunt, recidivi, salutis incurii, sacramenta 


per annos relinquentes, etc., morbo correpti sacerdotem advocant, 
datis signis quibusdam infirmis quidem et valide suspectis, quae 


sacramenta ipsis ministrari absolute debent, supposito mortis peri- 
culo? quae negari? Quid si talis infirmus necdum primam Com- 
munionem fecerit?’’ 


The following answer was given: « 


‘<Consulat missionarius probatos auctores. Meminerit tamen in 
mortis periculo quemlibet fidelium, qui dat signa resipiscentiae, a 
quolibet sacerdote absolvi de quibusvis peccatis et censuris posse, 
et neminem tune repelli a participatione sacramentorum, nempe Ex- 
tremae Unctionis, si aegrotent, et SSmi Viatici, nisi quoad Viaticum 
objiciatur consuetudo, qua iis qui extremo supplicio mox punientur 
denegatur, de qua quidem consuetudine nihil hic pronunciatur.’’18 


As has been shown, approved authors state that, when signs 
of sorrow have been given, Extreme Unction may be conferred. 
The reply of the Holy Office allows anointing after absolution 
has been imparted. A priest thus called has evidence of an ex- 


17 De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, ¢. 6, 2. 95: ‘<De quolibet fideli de quo contrarium 
non constat, praesumendum est fuisse hoe sacramentum petiturum, 
si potuisset: passim siquidem videmus, Extremam Unctionem muniri, 
qui subita vi morbi oppressi, sensibus destituuntur, nec ullum Sacra- 
menti desiderium significare valent: eorum quippe perspecta pietas 
et fides, non obscurum praebet argumentum desiderii, quod, si posset, 
demonstrarent.’’ 

18 §, O, 8. Off., 9 Maii 1821 (Kentucky)—Collectanea, n. 757. 


258 Extreme Unction 


plicit petition for the sacraments and at least an implicit re- 
quest for Extreme Unction. There is no contumacy in manifest 
mortal sin; and henee, there is no obstacle from that quarter. It 
is true that the absolution of such a man, if he be unable to 
make a confession, is very dubious. But the fact of its possible 
‘inefficacy should not prevent the bestowal of the Unction. The 
very fact that Unction is secondarily a sacrament of the dead 
shows that Christ Himself intended it as an escape from sin 
for those incapable of making a confession at the time of anoint- 
ing. 

The conclusion logically drawn from this is that every one, 
regardless of the evil life he has led, should be given the sacra- 
ment, if there is a prudent judgment that he would have asked 
for and accepted the consolations of the Church in the hour of 
danger. Since even the most dissolute and abandoned sinners 
seriously desire salvation when they discover themselves near 
death, the priest must not judge too harshly in regard to the 
presence of an interpretative petition. The Casuist *® allows 
the anointment of a man who was a notorious drunkard, who 
lived a very irreligious life, who was a libertine, even though he 
fell into unconsciousness in the act of sin. Extreme Unction 
is probably the only refuge of such a man, especially sinee 1% 
may often be difficult for him to conceive an act of perfect con- 
trition.”° 

Moreover, the sacrament should not be denied its ability 
to revive in these cases by a bestowal under the condition ‘‘s2 
dispositus es,’’ as shall be noted later in the treatment of this 
canon. 

““Etiamsi deinde sensus vel usum rationis amiserint.’’ 

Since the petition is an act of the will, it must be done in 
conscious life. In the case of an interpretative petition, the ra- 
tional actions of the subject are to be considered. Even when 
bestowed on those who fall into unconsciousness after persistent 
refusal of the sacraments, the action is based on the possibility 
of sorrow occurring in the fraction of time prior to absolute 
unconsciousness, or because oftentimes such a complete state of 
insensibility has not possessed the patient. 


19 Vol. V, pp. 230-2. 
20 Cf. supra, chap. vii, p. 237 sqq.; also Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 321. 


Administration to the Unconscious 259 


When this petition, explicit, implicit or interpretative, has 
been made, the sacrament can be given even though in the mean- 
while the subject has lost his senses by becoming unconscious oF 
his reason by becoming insane or delirious. 

In administrations to insane people as well as to those who 
are delirious there is great danger that irreverences may be com- 
mitted. Because of this, and also because of the mistaken view 
that actual devotion was required in the recipient, some theolo- 
gians forbade an administration to these people, no matter how 
sincere their wills before such lapses from reason. For example, 
St. Thomas wrote: 


‘¢Ad effectum hujus sacramenti suscipiendum, plurimum valet 
devotio suscipientis et personale meritum conferentium, et generale 
totius Ecclesiae. Quod patet ex hoe, quod per modum deprecationis 
forma hujus sacramenti confertur; et ideo illis qui non possunt cog- 
noscere et cum devotione suscipere, hoc sacramentum dari non debet: 
et praecipue furiosis et amentibus, qui possunt irreverentiam sacra- 
mento facere, nisi haberent lucida intervalla in quibus Sacramenta 
recognoscerent, et sic eis conferri in statu ipso posset.’’21 


In similar fashion the Sixth Provincial Council of Bene- 
ventum (anno 1374) excluded these unfortunates from partici- 
pation in the sacrament: 


*" ‘¢Phreneticis et amentibus illis praecipue dari non debet qui 
possunt sacramento irreverentiam per aliquam immunditiam facere, 
nisi haberent dilucida intervalla in quibus gacramentum recognos- 

‘ cerent, quia tune eis in aliquo statu conferri potest, maxime ubi in 
cana mente constituti petivissent, quia ad hoc, quod prosit hoc sacra- 
mentum requiritur devotio quaedam interior, quam furiosi et similes 
habere non possunt. Unde nullus ungendus est, nisi qui primo com- 
pos mentis existens, verbis aut signis id postulaverit.’’22 


Later legislation and theological opinion *° did not coincide 
with such an absolute exclusion of those who were in delirium 
or insanity. Actual devotion was not demanded of the recipient, 
and unction was allowed if the danger of irreverence was re- 
moved and there was evidence of a ‘‘netitio’’ before the subject 
lost the use of reason. Thus the Ritual of the Church of Meaux, 


21 Comm. in IV lib. Sent., dist. xxiii, q. 2, a. 2, quaestiune. 3. 
22 Tit. 8, cap. 1; cf. Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 311. 


23 Cf, e. g. Estius, Comm. tn IV Sent., dist. xxili, paragr. 13. 


260 Extreme Unction 


published in 1547, contained this rubric: ‘‘Sciendum est quod 
ministrari non debet excommuniecatis, &e .. . nee furiosis, nec 
phreneticis (nisi ante phenesim aut maniam petierunt).’’ *4 
Thus, too, the Ritual of Vienne, edited thirty years later (1577) : 
‘Hoe sacramentum datur solum infirmis, adultis et poeniten- 
tibus, et qui sunt in periculo mortis, quique illud petunt, vel ante 
petierunt, quam per infirmitatem intellectu et bono sensu priva- 
rentur. <=> : 

The Synod of Paris in 1557 also legislated in this merciful 
vein: ‘‘Si qui vero ex morbi gravitate in amentiam inciderint, 
consideranda est eorum vita praecedens; qui si laudabiliter, 
vitam duxerint ante actam et Christiane, ab hujus perceptione 
arceri non debent.’’ °° 

St. Charles Borromeo 27 is equally as generous, but he also 
stresses the necessity of avoiding all possible irreverence. The 
Roman Ritual before its latest revision made a similar provision 
against irreverence: ‘‘Sed si infirmus, dum phrenesi aut amen- 
tia laborat, verisimiliter posset quidquam facere contra reveren- 
tiam Sacramenti, non inungatur nisi periculum tollatur om- 
nino.’’?*8 This rubric is not found in the latest edition of the 
Rituale. 

However, the intrinsic sanctity of the sacraments demands 
that every precaution be taken against any possible irreverence 
or indecency on the part of the subject. Suarez? notes that 
the reverence due to the sacrament is to be preferred to the bene- 
fit accruing to the individual. Consequently it is of paramount 
importance for the minister to see that the sanctity of the sac- 
raments do not suffer. What means are to be taken to accom- 
plish this is left to the prudent judgment of the attendant priest. 


24 Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 562. 

25 Launoi, Op. Omma, t. I, p. 563. 

26 Natal. Alex., Th. D. et M., lib. IT, tr. de Ext. Unet., c. 5, reg. 16. 

27 “*Instructiones de Sac. Ext. Unct.,’’? apud Acta Eccl. Mediol., t. I, pars 
IV, p. 604: ‘‘Infirmis autem qui, sana mente dum erant, illud peti- 
erunt, aut verisimile est quod petiissent, etiamsi postea in amentiam 
inciderint, vel ratione sermoneve uti desierint, ministrabitur item. 
Si vero dum infirmus amentia phrenesive laborat, verisimile sit, ut 
indecore aut spurce, impureve aliquid agat, quo irreverentia Sacra- 
mento huie fiat, non ungetur, nisi alicujus complexu ita teneatur 
ut firmus stabilisque haereat.’’ 

28 Tit. V, c. 1, n. 7 (edit. 1913). 

29 D. 42, s. 1, n. 9, ‘ 


Administration to the Unconscious °61 


As a last resort, an insane or delirious patient may be strapped 
or held down with force while the sacrament is being conferred.*° 
If the patient is very violent and can be forced into submissive- 
ness for only a very brief period, the priest will do well to 
resort to the short method of conferring the sacrament. 

Diana?! and Barbosa®? think that lay people should be 
excluded when a man is thus quieted by force, in order that no 
scandal may be given. Yet in practice, especially in our land 
where the priest has no clerics to assist him, it will be very 
difficult to procure any but laymen to subdue the insane man. 
Moreover, there is little danger of scandal, for all realize that 
such a patient is altogether irresponsible for his doings. 

If a man is known to suffer spasms of violence periodically, 
a priest would do wrong to wait purposely until such a time to 
confer the Unction. Reverence for the things of God would be 
sadly lacking in his heart. It will be often just as well to wait 
until the patient subsides, unless it is clear that the spell may 
so weaken him as to lessen appreciably the power of the sacra- 
ment in regard to corporal sanation. 


‘‘Nihilominus absolute praebeatur.’’ 


In all the cases above mentioned the sacrament is to be 
civen absolutely. There is to be no conditional qualification 
making the validity of the sacrament dependent upon the pres- 
ent moral status of the man’s soul. The activities for revivi- 
scence are not to be stinted in any way. 

By these words the Code declares that in these instances 
the necessary intention is not lacking and that such men are 
not unworthy of the sacramental fruits.** 

Even if they are not de facto worthy at the moment of 
reception, yet the probability that they will come into a state 
of worthiness is sufficient to compensate for the peril of frustra- 
tion of the Sacrament through an unconditional administra- 
tion.34 


30 Cf. Diana, Op. Coord., t. II, tr. IV, res. 50; Mastrio, Th. M., D. 19, q. 5, 
a. 1, n. 71; Lehmkuhl, Th. M., II, 723; St. Alph., Th. M., VI, 732; 
O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 863. 

31 Lac. 

32 De Off. et Pot. Par., cap. 22, n. 13. 

33 Blat, Comm. Tect., lib. III, p. I, n. 287. 

84 Cf. Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 375-76; Noldin, De Sac., 440, 










: { 
; 
7 
17 
A i] 
+ 
- f 
» ’ q 
) 4 
t 
t 
i] 
ale 
4i 
% 
P s 
| 
. 
\ 
‘ 
, j 
% ey : ie | y ted i arr’ ©; ‘ bY § c 
oF he : , ¢ : ts ‘ pe} ey an a f Ps | iu <i " 
P ; 4 ii ' b ¢ : a a mT : 
SA) }) { ‘bill Rea ae i. CR hae ray ae ‘ 


’ ' “ : | . x “ie ris iy a reid ee 
4 "i as ' Bad cat 4 4 yuh ] ete sy ae 
/ ye wii ae: & . mm j f “O oii Li ey sak J yi 


ty ‘ Pi aM 4 yi 
‘ A ys ¢ 
. ih sal ib. ahs 
‘ 7 
t a a i : 
‘‘ - ) 
’ ah Nae ey 
| a OD a4 
\ i = 

J ay Cale tide’ a, 8 
® id o> ¥ 


CHAPTER IX. 


OBLIGATION UPON THE SUBJECT 


CANON 944. 


Quamvis hoc sacramentum per se non sit de neces- 
sitate medii ad salutem, nemini tamen licet illud negli- 
gere; et omni studio et diligentia curandum ut infirmi, 
dum sui plene compotes sunt, illud recipiant. 





a 


\ ho 
’ 
* 
v 
4 
a] ‘ 
7 
< 7. 
‘ 
‘ 
. 
Pest 
4 
| 
4 ‘ 
ye ‘ 
ivme 


Ag 7 ees 
yh - ~2 

7 - “4% f - oe 
- 


av. 
4 
Se 
( 


Aad, 


4 
{ 
‘ 


i 
eb 
; 
A 

' 
‘ 

} 

y 
7 


an 


’ 


et ot 


CHAPTER IX. 


In canon 939 the obligations on the part of the minister in 
regard to the administration of Extreme Unction were eonsid- 
ered. The present canon treats of the obligations in regard to its 
reception, not only on the part of the subject but on the part 
of those who are bound to look after his welfare. Prior to a 
consideration of this question, however, it will be quite necessary 
to make a preliminary investigation into the necessity of this sac- 
rament in the economy of our salvation. 


“Quamvis hoc sacramentum per se non sit de necessitate media 
ad salutem.”’ 

A thing is said to be necessary necessitate medi when even 
its inculpable omission would preclude possibility of salvation. 
It can possess this prerogative in two ways. It ean be so or- 
dained by its very nature that no substitution can be made for 
it (ase. g., faith in an adult for Baptism or Penance )—and then 
it is said to be intrinsecally necessary necessitate medu. On the 
other hand a thing is said to be extrinsically necessary, neces- 
sitate medi, when it is required for our salvation by positive 
ordinance of God but in such fashion that salvation is not alto- 
gether thwarted by the substitution of other means (for ex- 
ample, Baptism by water, or attrition with Penance). The for- 
mer necessity is absolute, the latter relative or hypothetical. 

It is easily seen that Extreme Unction is not absolutely 
necessary necessitate medi. If baptism by water is not so neces- 
sary, nor the reception of the sacrament of Penance for those 
in mortal sin, neither can this be predicated of the complement 
of Penance, Extreme Unction. 

A thing is said to be per se necessary to salvation when it 
is required as the ordinary means to reach that blessed goal. 
It is necessary per accidens when, due to some obstacle which 
prevents the use of ordinary means, it becomes the only expe- 
dient by which eternal happiness can be gained. 


The first problem then is whether Extreme Unction is per 


[ 265 ] 


266 Extreme Unction 


se necessary necessitate medii relatiwa. It was evidently held to 
be such in some places. Thus the Synodalia of the Church of 
Rheims! and of the Church of Troyes? contained this enact- 
ment: 

‘‘Saepe moneant sacerdotes populum quod priusquam quartum 
decimum annum compleverint, maxime Sacramentum extremae 
Unctionis petant, et recipiant reverentur, si timeatur verisimiliter de 
morte infirmorum, quia necessarium est ad salutem istud Sacramen- 
tum, si possit haberi.’’ 


Kern ® concords in this view, maintaining that it is at least 
probable that Extreme Unetion is relatively necessary for sal- 
vation, necessitate medii. His arguments are well worth not- 
ing. In the first place, the Council of Trent * declared that it 
was Christ’s wish to furnish to His faithful the aids necessary 
to stave off the assaults of the enemy on every occasion of their 
earthly journey. These aids are found in an especial manner 
in the sacraments. Six sacraments supply every assistance re- 
quired to battle the temptations during the ordinary course of 
life. When the end approaches, however, bringing with it 
added assaults of the devil in a last frantic effort to tear the 
soul from God, a special help is given to fortify the sick man 
in such an hour so that his salvation may be assured. This 
special help is the sacrament of Extreme Unction, which con- 
sequently becomes the one ordinary means of salvation for dying 
sick people. Hence the reception of this sacrament is per se 
necessary ad salutem. 

Kern draws a second argument from the teaching of the 
Council of Trent on this point. A man in danger of death is 
subjected to temptations fiercer in intensity than at any other 
time in life. Satan explores the totality of his fiendish in- 
gvenuity in an endeavor to snare the soul near the end of its 
journey. Against such frightful tortures of soul the sick man 
lies in urgent need of an especial aid. Knowing this full well, 
Christ instituted Extreme Unction with this very aid as its 


1 Natalis Alexander, Th. D. et M., lib. II, c. 5, reg. 20; cf. De Sainte- 
Beuve, De Extr. Unct., disp. 7, a. 3, prop. 5 apud Migne, Cursus 
Theol. Comp., vol. XXIV, col. 125. 

2 apud De Sainte-Beuve, l.c. 

8 Tract. de EKxtr. Unct., pp. 364-72. 

4 Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct., proem, 


Obligation Upon the Subject 267 


primary effect. Certainly, then, it was intended as the ordinary 
means of bridging the gulf between the valley of death and the 
eates of heaven. If so intended, it 1s per se necessary, neces- 
sitate medi, for salvation. 


Moreover, Kern attacks the statement of Suarez that a man 
ean protect himself sufficiently in this hour by prayer and by 
sacrifices.» He demands proof of this; and urges in retort that 
very questionable dispositions must surely be present in one who 
in such an hour refuses the aid explicitly designed by a loving 
God to conquer the perils of that very occasion. Instead of 
complying with the means proposed by St. James in verse 14 
of the fifth chapter, he is employing the expedients recommended 
by the saint in the verse immediately preceding, which are in- 
tended for the other trials of life. When. serious sickness occurs, 
the apostle speaks of a new and entirely distinct help—and there 
is no implied meaning of the text that the Lord would *‘save ’? and 
‘‘raise up’’ the sick man if this especial means was not employed 
by the patient. If, as the Council of Trent said, the tempta- 
tions and trials of that hour are extremely vehement, and if this 
sacrament was instituted expressly against them, how can the 
validity of Suarez’s statement be admitted that neglect of Ex- 
treme Unction does not expose a man to serious sin? He re- 
quires extraordinary power, extraordinary strength in that hour. 
Of what avail are the usual means of buffeting temptation in an 
unusual situation like this? As Gregory the Great exclaimed: 
‘‘Quid ergo facient tabulae, si tremunt columnae? Aut quomodo 
virgulta immobilia stabunt, si hujus pavoris turbine etiam cedri 
quatiuntur ?’’ ® 


Finally Kern notes that there can be no argument against 
him drawn from the words of St. Thomas:* ‘‘Quamvis effectus 
principalis alicujus sacramenti possit haberi sine actuali per- 
eeptione hujus sacramenti vel sine sacramento vel per aliud sa- 
eramentum ex consequenti nunquam tamen haberi potest sine 


oO 


Suarez, d. 44, s. 1, n. 4: ‘‘Potest aliis modis subvenire sibi per 
orationem et sacrificia, quia licet hoc sacramentum multum ad hoe 
conferat, non est tamen necessarium medium, nec ob illus carentiam 
exponit se homo morali ac proximo periculo peccandi mortaliter in 
alio genere, seu consentiendi alicui tentationi daemonis,’’ 

Moral., 1. XXIV, c. 11—M. P. L., 76, 306. 

Suppl., q. 80, a. 1, ad 1. 


“1 


268 Extreme Unction 


proposito illius sacramenti.’’ Surely, says Kern, there would 
not even be a ‘‘propositum sacramenti’’ present in a man 
who, given the opportunity, would neglect or refuse to recelve 


the sacrament. 

Few theologians go as far as Kern in their assertions. Al- 
bertus Magnus demands at least the ‘‘votwm sacramenti.’’ “‘Quia 
non est sacramentum necessitatis,’’ he writes,® ‘‘sufficienter peri- 
eulo infirmorum provisum est in hoe quod ministri sunt parati; 
et si contingat ipsum, dwmmodo sit desiderium sumendi, sufficit 
ecoram Deo ad salutem, licet non ita forte cito plenae liberationis 
effectum consequatur infirmus.”’ 

By far the majority of theologians ® insist that Extreme 
Unction is not the wnicwm medium of salvation for the sick, and 
is therefore not per se necessary, necessitate medu. They allow 
its eminent utility and its extensive effects, but they emphatically 
deny its indispensability. As Elbel-Bierbaum puts it, ‘‘Hoe sa- 
cramentum non tam est necessarium quam utile.’’ ° 

This opinion was corroborated, to some extent at least, by a 
decision of the Inquisition™ in 1656. Missionaries were allowed 
to omit some sacramentals in the Baptismal rite and the entire 
sacrament of Extreme Unction in the case of Chinese women. 
The distinction between the sacramentals of Baptism and the 
entire sacrament of Extreme Unction is worthy of note. Even 


8 Comm. in quart. lib. Sent., dist. 23, a. 3, ad 4. 

9 Cf. Babenstuber, Ethica Supernat., tr. VIII, pars VI, disp. VII, a. 1, 
n. 4: Salmanticenses, Cursus Theol., tr. VII, cap. 4, punct. 2, n. 10; 
Tamburini, Th. M., Lib. VI, De Eat. Unct., cap. 2, paragr. 5, n. 7; 
Suarez, d. 44, s. 1, n. 4; Elbel-Bierbaum, Th. M., vol. III, Conf. X, 
n. 220; Estius, Comm. in lib. quart. Sent., dist. 23, paragr. 15; Pesch, 
Prael. Dog., VII, 557. 

10¢THOM.? TiLae ataay Lh, Conia maou. 

11 §. C. S. Off.,'23 Mar. 1656, ad. 2—Coll..S. C. P..F., n. 126 (vol 
page 38); ‘‘Secundo quaeritur: Utrum omnia sacramentalia in 
Baptismate foeminarum adultarum adhibenda sint. Quaeritur 
iterum: utrum sufficiat foeminis, petentibus tantum, Extremae Unc- 
tionis Sacramentum eonferre. Quaeritur iterum: num etiam petenti- 
bus negandum cum incommoda et pericula christianitatis totius 
prudenter futura praevidentur. Ratio dubitandi est, incredibilis apud 
Sinas foeminarum modestia, zelus et laudabilis earum ab omni 
virorum, non solum congressu, sed et aspectu fuga; qua in re, nisi 
magna adhibeatur a missionariis cautela, scandalum ingens Sinis 
datur, totaque christianitas evidentissimo periculo posset exponi. 

Sacra Congregatio, juxta ea quae superius proposita sunt censuit: 
ix gravi necessitate proportionata posse omitti quaedam_ sacra- 
mentalia in Baptismate foeminarum, ac etiam posse omitti ipsum 
Sacramentum Extremae Unctionis,’’ 


Obligation Upon the Subject 269 


though urgent reasons required extraordinary measures, yet 
if Extreme Unction were necessary for salvation, the permission 
to disregard the bestowal of the sacrament entirely would be 
given only after all other expedients had been exhausted. 

The new Code agrees with the opinion denying the neces- 
sity of Unction, and for practical purposes settles the question. 
The canon states categorically that this sacrament is not re- 
quired per se for salvation. Extreme Unetion presupposes the 
state of grace—a state sufficient of itself to obtain eternal life. 
“Gratia autem Dei vita aeterna.’’ ? 

There are however, some contingencies in which Extreme 
Unetion is the only, and consequently the necessary, means of 
salvation. Such an occasion occurs when a sick man, attrite for 
a mortal sin, is unable to confess it.¥® 

Heaven lies open to him only by the sacrament of the Unc- 
tion. Through that portal he must enter, or must die. Such 
a status of soul is altogether accidental, however, for the primary 
end of Extreme Unetion is not the forgiveness of sins. Hence 
it must be concluded that in such cases this sacrament is only 
per accidens necessary for eternal life. 

This is corroborated by the discipline of the Decretals. In 
times of interdict Extreme Unction could be prohibited,"* thus 
indieating that it was considered a sacrament of the living, and 
therefore not per se necessary. Otherwise the Church could not 
forbid it. When Penance could not be given, however, moralists 
and canonists taught that Extreme Unction could then be law- 
fully administered, implying that Unction became per accidens 
necessary for salvation. 


“‘Nemini tamen licet illud negligere.”’ 

Besides the ‘‘necessitas mediz’’ there is also the ‘‘necessitas 
praecepti,’’ in virtue of which a thing is prescribed in such a 
fashion that a deliberate omission of it would result in sin. Evi- 
dently this necessity is not as strict as the former. Indeed non- 


‘ 


12 Ad Rom., VI, 23. 

13 Cf. Scavini, Th. M., vol. III, n. 480; Blat, Comm. fart eoen TARR Bee a Me 
n, 288. 

14 ¢, 11, X, de Paenitentiis, V, 38: ‘¢Ticet autem per generale interdictum 
denegetur omnibus tam unctio quam ecclesiastica sepultura. ’’ 

15 Of. e. g., Reiffenstuel, Jus Canon. Uniw., V, tit. 39, n. 203; Pesch, Prael. 
Dog., VII, 557. 


270 Extreme Unction 


fulfillment of the precept is excused by any cause which ordi- 
narily exempts from mortal sin, such as ignorance, moral im- 
possibility, &e.18 Accordingly, the next question to be consid- 
ered is whether Extreme Unction is of necessity by precept, 
either divine or ecclesiastical. 


The result of the first problem, viz., whether the reception 
of Extreme Unetion has been divinely commanded, hinges to 
a great extent upon the force of the Jacobean text: ‘‘Inducat 
presbyteros Eeclesiae.’’ Do these words implicitly contain a 
command, ‘or should they be regarded as merely admonitory or 
exhortatory ? , 


Some theologians construe the words of St. James as the 
promulgation of a strict precept. Cornelius a Lapide ™ says that 
‘‘indueat’’ contains ‘‘non tantum consilium sed et praeceptum.’’ 
Juenin,!® Tournely }° and Concina *° render the very same exege- 
sis of the seriptural text. Weinhart, in the article on ‘‘ Extreme 
Unetion’’ in the Encyclopedic de la Theologie Catholique, ex- 
pressed the same view: 


La réception de ce sacrament n’est pas absolument nécessaire 
necessitate medii, on a méme prétendu qu’il n’y a pas commandement 
& ce sujet, de sorte que ce ne serait, pas l’absence, mais le mépris 
de 1’Extréme Onction qui serait coupable. Mais les paroles de 8. 
Jacques suffisent por établir le précepte, et par consequent, la 
nécessité du sacrement.’’21 


Coneiliar levislation revealed the same frame of theological 
thought. The second Couneil of Chalons-sur-Saone?? seems to 
imply a divine precept: ‘‘Secundum beati Apostoli Jacobi docu- 
mentum, cui etiam documenta patrum consonant, infirmi oleo 
quod ab episecopis benedicitur, a presbyteris ungi debent.’’? In 
similar fashion the Couneil of Cologne 73 legislated: ‘“‘ Est autem 
Unetio impendenda, cum expositione Unctionis et mandati Apo- 


16 Cf. Tanquerey, Th. D., ITI, 420; Cappello, De Sac., I, 126. 
17 Comm. in Ep. 8. Jac., V, 14. 

18 De Sac. in Gen. et in Specie, dis. 7, gq. 9, c 2. 

19 Praelect. Dog., tom. II, gq. ult, a. 2. 

20 Theol. Christiana, vol. X, 1. 1, de Ext. Unct., c. IV, n. 7-8. 
21 Tom...16, p. 363. 

22 Anno 813—can. 48, apud Harduin IV, 1040, 

23 Anno 1536,—part. VII, cap. L, apud Harduin, IX, 2011. 


Obligation Upon the Subject 271 


stolici, quod sie habet: ‘Infirmatur aliquis in vobis? Inducat 
presbyteros Eeclesiae; &e.’’ 


Thus too spoke the second Council of Baltimore: 


‘‘Quum igitur Christus Dominus per Apostolum loquens prae- 
cepto urgeat quumque tam salutares effectus ex hoc Sacramento pro- 
fluant, curent omni, quo par est, studio animarum Pastores, ut ex 
populo sibi commisso wnusquisque, qu ad id tenetur, salutari hoe 
praesidio munitus de vita decedat.’’24 


The provincial Council of Colocza also made mention of this 
as an obligation : 


‘¢Aoant proinde pastores animarum, ut fidelium aegre discum- 
bentium rationem habeant, quos, si expedierit, suscipiendi hujus 
sacramenti obligationis paterne admoneant.’’25 


The Council of Trent would naturally furnish the most for- 
midable argument in this connection: 


‘‘Quare nulla ratione audiendi sunt, qui contra tam apertam 
et dilucidam apostoli Jacobi sententiam docent, hance unctionem vel 
figmentum esse humanum, vel ritum a patribus acceptum, nec man- 
datum Dei, nec promissionem gratiae habentem.’’26 


On the other hand there are many weighty theologians who 
hold that there is not a divine precept of reception.** They base 
their argument on the interpretation of the words of St. James 
and upon the statement of Innocent III in the Decretals,** that 
its administration could be forbidden to all in time of interdict. 
This latter argument, though advanced with great stress by 
Suarez, Pesch, Pierrot and others, seems to prove nothing. In 
the early days of the Church the Viaticum was sometimes for- 
bidden to penitents even in danger of death, though at 
such a time there is a divine precept to receive it.*? If the 





24 Anno 1866, tit. V, cap. 7, n. 306—Coll. Lac., t. ITI, col. 480. 

25 Anno 1863: Tit. TIL, cap. X—Coll. Lac., t. V, col. 659. 

26 Sess. XIV, De Eat. Unct., cap. 3. 

27 St. Thomas, Comm. im lib. quart. Sent., dist. 23, q. 1, a. 1, sol. 3 ad 
if Suarez, GFA is Mas ast Alphonsus, Th. M., VI, 788; De 
Sainte- Beuve, disp. VIL, De "Ext. Unet., art. 3—apud Migne, Curs. 
Theol. Comp., XXIV, col. 124; Pesch, Prael. Dog., VII, 557; Berardi, 
Prag. Conf. L,n. 5008; Pierrot, Theologie Morale, col. 1073-4; &e. 

28 ec. 11, X, de Paenitentiis, v, 38. 

29 Ep. 6 Innocentii I, ad Exuperium, n . 6—M. P. L., 20, 501 A. 


272 Extreme Unction 


Church can consider that the bonum publicum is so bettered and 
benefited at such a time as to interpret the divine precept which 
was made for private good of the individual, certainly the argu- 
ment can be extended a pari to the ease of Extreme Unction. 

The better argument is the former, viz., that the Jacobean 
text contains a counsel rather than a precept. The tense em- 
ployed in verse 14 of the fifth chapter is exactly the same as 
that employed in verse 13, which reads: ‘‘Tristatur aliquis 
vestrum? oret. Aequo animo est? Psallat.’’ Without inter- 
ruption the sacred text continues: ‘‘Infirmatur quis in vobis? 
Indueat presbyteros Ecclesiae.’’ It is evident, then, that if it is 
maintained that the text imposes an obligation upon the sick 
to summon the priests, it must be held with equal insistence that 
the ‘‘joyful in mind’’ must sing songs. Thus Bord writes: 
‘‘Mais l’écrivain inspiré n’intime certainement pas aux fidéles, 
qui sont dans l’allégresse, l|’ordre strict d’entonner des chants 
pieux. Il est 4 croire que semblablement il ne veut pas imposer 
a ceux que la maladie afflige l’obligation rigoureuse de recevoir 
les onections purificatrices des presbytres.’’ °° 

The argument from the wording of the Couneil of Trent, 
which at first sight seems so formidable, loses much of its vigor 
when compared with the phraseology of Canon IV of the section 
‘*de Extrema Unctione’’ (Sess. XIV): ‘‘Si quis dixerit, presby- 
teros Eeeclesiae, quod beatus Jacobus adducendos esse ad in- 
firmum inungendum hortatur, non esse sacerdotes, &., anathema 
sit.’’ Moreover ‘‘mandatum’’ of the other passage is inter- 
preted, not as indueing a strict obligation, but rather as a 
recommendation (‘‘commendatum’’).?+ 

As a consequence the more common, and likewise the more 
probable opinion is that there is no divine precept ordering the 
reception of Extreme Unction in danger of death. 

Is this sacrament prescribed, then, by ecclesiastical pre- 
cept? There is certainly no express ecclesiastical precept now 
in force except that contained in this canon of the Code. But 
has not the constant, consistent, continual and universal custom 
among the faithful of receiving this sacrament come to receive 
the force of a law? Such an argument appealed very strongly 


30 L’Katréme Onction, p. 59. 
81 Cf. Petrus Dens, Theol. Mech., ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ N. 10, p. 55. 


Obligation Upon the Subject 273 


to Concina.22 The solicitude of the Church that the faithful 
should always be furnished this sacrament, together with the 
persuasion of the faithful that they are bound to receive it, 
was enough to convince Roneaglia** and Juenin®* of the exis- 
tence of a precept. 


On the other hand these arguments do not influence many 
theologians of great weight. These men cannot persuade them- 
selves that the custom of the faithful or the solicitude of the 
Church is enough to create a striet law in this matter.*> More- 
over, the cautious terminology always used in official documents 
upon this matter indicates the lack of certainty on the subject. 
Innocent I, writing his famous letter to Decentius, used this 
terminology: ‘‘Omnibus Christianis uti licet.’’3® The Council 
of Trent 27 anathematized those who declared that the sacrament 
could be contemned without sin—but said nothing about those 


peg) cae a. 
— SHIM Bin 5 
~ 





32 Theol. Christ., tom. X, lib. I de E. U., diss. I, ¢. IV, un. 8: ‘Quid? 
Feclesia catholica sacramenta habet otiosa, indifferentia, in cassum 
instituta? Utique non adest praeceptum expressum et peculiare ab 
Ecclesia latum, jubens hane sacramenti susceptionem; sed consue- 
tudo perpetua, constans et universalis fidelium suscipiendi hoe sacra- 
mentum vim legis obtinet. Quorum tot Ecclesiae studia in afferendo 
adversus Novatores hoc sacramento, si nulla urgeret necessitas, nul- 
lumque praeceptum ejusdem usus?’’ 

83 Univ. Theol. Mor., ‘‘De Ext. Unet.,’’ p. 122, q. 7. 

34 De Sac. in Gen. et in Spec., dis. 7, q. 9, cap. 2. 

85 Cf. e. g., Suarez (disp. 44, s. 1, n. 2): ‘‘Nee tale praeceptum sufficienti 
aliqua traditione aut consuetudine introductum est, cujus argu- 
mentum est, quod theologi non agnoscunt.’’ 

De Sainte-Beuve (De Ext. Unct., d. 7, a. 3 apud Migne, Curs. 
Theol. Comp., vol. XXIV, col. 125): ‘<Nullo praecepto ecclesiastico 
singuli fidelés adulti tenentur suscipere in exitu Unctionem infir- 
morum.... Nulla lex eccelsiastica hujusmodi proferri potest. Neque 
etiam id evincitur ex praxi Ecclesiae, tum quia ostendi non potest e@ 
semper fuisse praxis Ecclesiae; tum quia etiamsi praxis ea fuerit, 
posset dici praxis fuisse orta ex consideratione utilitatis atque ex- 
hortationis Apostoli, non ex obligatione; quod requiritur ut praxis 
indueat pracceptum.’’ Cf. also Ballerini-Palmieri, (Op. Theol. Mor., 
vol. V, tr. X, sect. 6, n. 59); AErtnys (Th. M., II, 369); D’Anni- 
bale (Summ. Th. M., III, 419); Noldin (De Sac., 446); Lehmkuhl 
(Th. M., II, 726, footnote). St. Alphonsus (Th. M., VI, 733), though 
holding that the obligation to receive it is grave, rejects the argu- 
ment that the source of this obligation lies in an ecclesiastical 
precept. 

86 Ep. ‘‘ Si instituta ecclesiastica,’’ 19 Mar. 416, cap. 8—C, I. C. Fontes, 
n. 19. 

37 Sess, XIV, De Ext Unct., can. 3. 


274 Extreme Unction 


who said it might be omitted without sin. Benedict XIV ** 
warned bishops not to legislate in such terminology as would 
imply an absolute necessity of receiving the sacrament. 


Rome has shown good example. In the investigation of 
faith proposed for those suspected of being Wicliffites and 
Hussites, the query asked was: ‘‘Utrum eredat quod Christi- 
anus contemnens susceptionem sacramentorum Confirmationis 
vel Hxtremae Unctionts aut solemnizationis Matrimonil peccet 
mortaliter.’’ °° As noted before, there is a great difference 
between ‘‘contemnens’’ and ‘‘omittens’’ or ‘‘neghgens.’’ This 
was recognized by Martin V when he wrote: ‘‘Hoe sacramentum 
[1. e., Extrema Unctio] neque negligi sine culpa, neque contemni 
posse sine peccato mortali.’’ *° 


In the Ritual, too, the same official viewpoint is manifested. 
The pastor is urged to see to it that the sacraments be received 
in due time—but there is not a word of explicit obligation on 
the part of the recipient. Similarly in drawing up the present 
law, the legislator seems especially unwilling to decide the ques- 
tion. A controversy had long been raging in regard to the duty 
of receiving Confirmation and Extreme Unction. In treating 
of this, the Code uses the identical phrase for both sacraments: 
‘‘Non licet illud negligere.’? Consequently theologians feel that 
the legislator wished to make no great change in this matter.‘? 


Practically, then, the only obligation arising ex jure ecclesi- 
atico has its source in the words of the present canon. Though 
not in absolute need of Extreme Unction, the Code states, a 
man is not allowed to neglect it, i. e., voluntarily and without 
sufficient reason to omit its reception. The obligation eontained 


388 De Syn. Dioc., |. 8, « 7, n. 4: “*Quum tamen celerem commendat 
hujus sacramenti administrationem, abstineat a verbis quae videantur 
significare ejusdem recipiendi absolutam necessitatem: ne secus 
videatur ipse quaestionem dirimere hactenus indecisam.’’ 

39 Const. ‘‘ Inter Cunctas’’ (in Cone. Constantien.), 22 Feb. 1418 (‘‘ Tenor 
interrog. juxta quae haeretict, aut de haeresi suspecti interrogart 
debet’’—n..19)—C. I. Cy Fontes, n,. 43. 

40 Cf. 8. Alph., VI, 733. 

41 Tit. V, c. 4, n. 10, In the first rubrie of chapter I of this title the 
words of the Code are repeated. Their force will be the same as 
those of the canon, and consequently what will be said of the canon 
will equally apply to the rubric. 

42 Cf. Noldin, De Sac., 446; Ferreres, Comp. Th, M., II, 847; Woywod, 
A Practical Commentary, I, n. 867, 


_s- 


Obligation Upon the Subject 275 


therein is surely not serious, for the phraseology is too mild.** 
Genicot’s observation seems especially pertinent: ‘*Si daretur 
gravis obligatio, Ecclesia eam jam saepius scripta lege propo- 
suisset.’’ *4 

It remains then to be seen whether or not there is an obliga- 
tion arising from some other source than divine or ecclesiastical 
law. Negligence of this sacrament always horrified and saddened 
pious minds. Impressed by what seemed a spiritual prodigality, 
they investigated how seriously the virtue of charity erga se was 
binding upon a sick man in this regard. Another controversy 
arose, more vehement in its intensity, and effecting a greater 
division in the ranks of theologians than any other dispute on 
this point. 

St. Alphonsus,*® though generously admitting the proba- 
bility of the opposite opinion, was impressed by this argument 
founded upon the obligation of loving one’s self. It is possible, 
the saint said, for a man oppressed with sickness to strengthen 
himself against the temptations of that time by means other 
than Extreme Unction. Yet it is ‘none the less true that the 
weakened powers of the body make co-operation with grace very 
much more difficult at that time. As the physical forces are 
ebbing, the temptations increase in frequency and intensity, 
causing a ceaseless disturbance of the tranquility of soul so 
beneficial to a dying man. ‘‘Nullum tamen tempus est,’’ says 
the Council of Trent,4* ‘‘quo vehementius ille omnes suae 
versutiae nervos intendat ad perdendos nos penitus, et a fiducia 
etiam, si possit divinae misericordiae deturbandos, quam cum 
impendere nobis exitum vitae prospicit.’’ What the sick man 
needs is something to give him grace ‘Cox opere operato;’’ to 
obtain it ‘‘ex opere operantis’’ is becoming more difficult every 
minute. Now Extreme Unetion has been instituted for this 
specific purpose; against the peculiar temptations of that hour, 
this sacrament is man’s most potent protection. Surely the 
neglect of this heaven-given safeguard seems to entail a serious 





43 Cf, Noldin, De Sac., 446; Vermeersch-Creusen, Epit., II, 228; Augus- 
tine, 4 Commentary, IV, p. 405; Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., 
Il, 424; Sabetti-Barrett, Th. M., p. 806. 

44 Lic. 

45 Th. M., VI, 733. 

46 Sess, XIV, de Ext. Unct., proem. 


276 Extreme Unction 


imperilment of eternal salvation—and consequently a serious 
breach of charity toward one’s self. 

This argument of St. Alphonsus appealed very strongly to 
Petrus Dens 47 and to De Augustinis.4® Perin *® argues from 
a similitude. Just as a person gravely sick sins seriously in re- 
fusing medicine greatly helpful to his recovery, in similar fashion 
—or, as Perin puts it, a fortiori,—negligence to receive this 
sacrament, instituted by Christ per modum medicinae spiritu- 
alis pro salute animae et corporis, is likewise gravely sinful. 
Roneaglia °° used this obligation of charity as one of the reasons 
for his opinion that there was a serious obligation on the sick 
man to obtain for himself this sacrament. 

On the contrary, the gravity of the obligation from charity 
is rejected by many other theologians. This sacrament, they 
say, is an aid, not a necessity. It is the best means in the situa- 
tion, but not the only means. Charity toward one’s self does 
not obligate one sub mortali to take the better means. At most 
then, there is but a venial obligation on the subject from this 
‘virtue. 


Suarez expresses this opinion thus: 


‘‘Et quamvis videatur quaedam prodigalitas spiritualis, sine 
cogente causa perdere tantum spiritualem fructum, tamen intrin- 
sece ac per se non est peccatum mortale, quia sine illo fructu potest 
diligi Deus super omnia et salus aeterna obtineri. Neque etiam ex 
parte periculi, cui homo se exponit, in articulo mortis omittendo tale 
remedium contra insidias inimici, est per se peccatum mortale, quia 
potest aliis modis subveniri sibi per orationem et sacrificia, quia 
licet hoe sacramentum multum ad hoe conferat, non est tamen neces- 
sarium medium, nec ob illius carentiam exponit se homo morali et 
proximo periculo peccandi mortaliter in alio genere, seu consentiendi 
alicui tentationi daemonis,’’51 


A host of authors aecept this opinion and teach that there 
is per se no grave obligation in charity to partake of this sacra- 
ment. Some deordination is present, nevertheless, when a man, 
against the dictates of sound reason, neglects to avail himself of 





47 Theol. Mech., ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ p. 56. 

48 De Re peel ete IT, D- 407-8, 

49 De Ext. Unct., art. 2, q. 5. 

50 Univ. Theol. Mor., ‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ p. 122, q. 7. 
51 D, 44, sec. 1, n. 4, 


Obligation Upon the Subject 277 


this super-powerful safeguard, instituted for his help in the 
very crisis thru which he is passing. But this obligation is not 
serious enough to convict those neglecting it of mortal sin. 


Thus it is seen that the obligation of receiving Extreme 
Unction is a highly disputed question. Two camps of theological 
thought continue to hold their eround today with as much 
vehemence as ever. An idea of the solid external probability 
both opinions have can be gained from this enumeration of the 
chief proponents of each. Without any respect to the reasons 
which they urge, the best known champions of the view which 
place a grave obligation on the subjects are: Peter Lombard,” 
Seotus,°? St. Bonaventure,*4 Juenin,®®> Cornelius a Lapide,”® 
Tournely,°? Roneaglia,”* Antoine,»» Drouven,® Petrus Dens,®* 
Perin,® Concina,™ St. Alphonsus,** Seavini,®°’ De Augustinis,° 
Kern®? and Ferreres.®8 On the opposite side the principal pro- 
ponents of the teaching that the obligation is but venial, are as 
follows: Cabbasutius,°® St. Thomas Aquinas,“ Henriquez,” 
Conineck,” Diana,” Salmanticenses,“* Estius,  Billuart,”®° 





52 Libri IV Sententiarum, lib. quart., dist. 23, c. 3—M. P. L., 192, 900. 

53 Comm. in lib. quart. Sent., disp. 7, qu. 2. 

54 Comm. in lib. quart. Sent., dist. XXIII, dub. IV, in fine; cf. dist. 
Kiba, LU ia.f2, q- 1. 

55 De Sac. in Gen. et in Spec., dis. 7, q. 9, ©. 2. 

56 Comm. in Ep. 8. Jacobi, V, 14. 

567 Prael. Dog., De Ext. Unct., quaest. ult., a. 2. 

58 Univ. Theol. Mor., De Ext. Unct., q. 7. 

59 Th. M., t. V, Tract. de Eat. Unet., qu. ‘f 

60 De Re Sacramentaria, lib. VII, Qu. 5, cap. 2. 

61 Theol. Mech., ‘‘De Eat. Uncet.,’’ pp. 59-6. 

62 De Eat. Unct., art. 2, q. 9. 

63 Theol. Christ. tom. X, dis. I, De E. U., ¢. 4, n. 7-8. 

64 Th. M., VI, 733. 

65 Th. M., t. III, n. 430. 

66 De Re Sacramentaria, II, pp. 408-9. 

67 Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 369. 

68 Comp. Th. M., II, 847. 

69 Jur. Can. Theor. et Pramw., 1. 3, ¢. 15, n. 8. 

70 Comm. in lib. quart. Sent., dist. 23, q. 1, a. 1, quaestiune. 3 ad 1; 
Suppl. q. 29, a. 3, ad 1. 

Mee Sac: lib. 13; .¢. 10, n..3. 

72 De Sac. et Censuris, disp. de E. U., dub. 10. 

73 Opera Coordinata, tom. 2, tr. IV, res. 25. 

4 Cursus Theol., Tr. VII, cap. IV, punct. 2. 

75 Comm. in quart. lib. Sent., d. 23, paragr. 15. 

76 Tract. De Ext. Unct., diss. unica, art. 7. 


278 Extreme Unction 


Sporer,77 Babenstuber,”® Tamburini,’? Laymann,®° De Sainte- 
Beuve,®! Suarez,®2 Pesch,8* Noldin,** Vermeersch-Creusen,*® 
Kenrick,8* Genicot-Salsmans,’?7 Tanquerey,®® Augustine,’ D’An- 
nibale,®® Sabetti-Barrett,9! Lehmkuhl,®? Konings,°? Aartnys,*4 
Berardi,®» Sebastiani,°® Matharan-Castillon®’ and _ Ballerini- 
Palmieri.®8 

From a glance at the mighty names aligned upon either side 
of the question, it can be seen that adherence to either side is 
entirely justifiable. Practically, however, the reception of Ex- 
treme Unction cannot be urged as a serious obligation. Two 
venial sins can rightly be laid at the feet of those who neglect 
it, one of disobedience against the precept of this canon and 
the other of a lack of charity toward one’s self. 


While this great divergence of opinion exists about the 
simple negligence of the sacrament, there is no such division of 
thought in regard to the gravity of the obligation when there 
is danger of contempt or scandal connected with the negligence. 
The Council of Trent has decided the gravity of such a sin: 
‘‘Neque vero tanti sacramenti contemptus absque ingenti scelere, 
et ipsius Spiritus Sancti injuria esse posset.’”® Prior to that 


77 De Sac. in Genere, n. 24. 

78 Ethica Supernat., tr. 8, disp. 7, art. 1, n. 4. 

79 Th. M., Lib. VI, de Ext. Unct., cap. II, paragr. 5, n. 7. 

80 Th. M., Tr. de Ext. Unct., cap. 7, n. 1. 

81 De Ext. Unct., disp. 7, a. 3 apud Migne, Curs. Theol. Mor., vol. XXIV, 
col. 124-5. 

82 DPD, 44, 8.1, n. 2. 

83 Prael. Dog., VII, 5957. 

84 De Sac., 446. 

85 Hpit., II, 228. 

86. 7h M.S Devhet. Unc, capramc.. nm 22: 

87 Inst. Th. M., II, 424. 

BS Ths DAL 780-1; 

89 A Commentary, IV, p. 405. 

90 Summ. Th. M., III, 419. 

91 Th. M., p. 806. 

92 Th. M., II, 726. 

93 Th. M., n. 1508. 

94 Th. M., II, 369. 

95 Prax. Conf., II, n. 5008. 

96 Swmm. Th. M., n. 512. 

97 Asserta Moralia, n. 521. 

98 Op. Theol. Mor., tom. V, tr. X, sect. VI, n. 59. 

99 Sess, XIV, De Ext. Unct., cap. 3. 


Obligation Upon the Subject 24g 


time it was officially insinuated that such was the ease, when 
the Wicliffites and Hussites were to be asked: ‘‘Utrum eredat 
quod Christianus contemnens susceptionem Extremae Unctionis 
...peceet mortaliter.’1°° Loeal Councils forbade ecclesiastical 
burial to those who held Extreme Unction in contempt." 

It is quite necessary that real contempt be distinguished 
from negligence or laziness. Pesch 1°" says that it consists in 
a refusal of the sacrament because it is considered something 
vile or useless. It is distinguished from negligence by the 
reason which motivates its non-reception. Even if the negli- 
gence proceeds from human respect or from fear, it cannot be 
said to be contemptuous.’ Similarly, repugnance to reception, 
which is ascribable to an erroneous belief that it is an unerring 
harbinger of death or that recovery will entail the loss of 
marriage rights, ete., is not contempt of the sacrament hee yA WES 
fear that it will hasten death, it must be noted, is objectively a 
mortal sin against faith. On the other hand, to shrink from 
the sacrament because of the false impression that the use of 
marriage and other things will be forbidden upon recovery 
eannot be said to be seriously wrong. Such an error is not 
violently pernicious, nor irreverent, nor contrary to true faith 
in the sacrament. 

There will also be a grave obligation on the part of the 
subject to receive Extreme Unction when negligence or refusal 
would cause great scandal to others. Such an instance would 
be the case of a bishop or a pastor who does not receive this 
sacrament, although there 1s ample opportunity to do so.1°° 
Seandal would likewise be given if such a refusal would lead 
bystanders to think that the subject had become a heretic,'®* or 





100 Martinus V (in cone. Constantien.) const. ‘‘Inter Cuwnctas,’’ 22 Feb. 
1418, § 14, art. 19, de quo errorum Wicleff et Husz suspecti inter- 
rogandi—C. I. C. Fontes, n. 43. 

101 Cf. Council of Cologne (sub Adolpho)—apud Hardyin IX, 2110; and 
the synods of Langres, Troyes and Paris—apud Natalis Alexander, 
The DeetiM, labsi2, Cucdpotes 20: 

102 Prael. Dog., VII, 5957. 

103 Suarez, d. 44, s. 1, n. 6; Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., Il, 424. 

104 Elbel-Bierbaum, Th. M., III, pars VIII, Conf. X; ns 227; Billot, De 
Eccl. Sac., thesis xxv, p. 239; Gury-Ferreres, Casus Consc., II, 810. 

105 Elbel-Bierbaum, l.c.; Gury-Ferreres, l.c. 

106 Genicot, Casus Conse., cas. 891; Elbel-Bierbaum, Dies kee 1 LT bate 
VIII, Conf. X, n. 221. 

107 St, Alph., Th. M., VI, 733, 


280 Extreme Unction 


that the sacrament was of little account or altogether worth- 
less,108 


It may be asked why actions such as these are grievously 
scandalous. Rarely will they induce others not to receive Ex- 
treme Uncetion; but even granting that they did, it would 
revolve about a matter only of venial obligation. How ean the 
seandal be said to be mortal which results in the transgression of 
a light obligation by those scandalized? The answer is given 
by Suarez: 

‘‘Ex eo solo capite non esset proprium et rigorosum scandalum. 

Posset tamen eam rationem habere, si eo exemplo inducerentur fideles 
vel ad parvipendendum hoc sacramentum, vel ad negligenda genera- 
liter remedia suae salutis, vel ad judicandum temere et cum publica 
detractione de salute spirituali talis personae, vel alia similia, quae 
respectu communitatis non sunt sine gravi periculo multorum pecca- 
torum mortalium, vel certe non sine gravi detrimento spirituali ejus- 
dem communitatis, quod interdum potest sufficere ut scandalum sit 
grave peccatum.,’’109 


“Et omni studio et diligentia curandum ut infirmi, dum sua 
plene compotes sunt, illud recipiant. 


Solicitous as she has always been, the Church not only 
recommends, but commands, that the sacraments be given to 
the sick at a time sufficiently seasonable to allow the effects of 
the sacrament to be exercised to their fullest extent. Naturally 
enough, therefore, she has inserted in her code of law an in- 
junction that diligence and zeal be used in conferring Extreme 
Unction at the time most beneficial to the recipient. Such a 
time will be, of course, when the subject is in full possession 
of his senses, because his will can then co-operate to the greatest 
extent with the actions of grace resulting from the reception of 
the sacrament. The capabilities of corporal cure, resident in 
the sacrament, can also have their fullest freedom, so that, if 
God wills it, the cure can be effected with ease by the overflow 
of the grace of the sacrament from the soul upon the body. 


108 Petrus Dens, Th. Mech., ‘‘De Extr. Unct.,’’ p. 56; AErtnys, Th. M., 
II, 369. 


109 D. 44, 8.1, n. 5. 


Obligation Upon the Subject 281 


Since the time of the Council of Trent, the Church has 
insisted in general legislation and thru particular councils that 
eare and diligence be taken to insure an opportune administra- 
tion of Extreme Unction. The Catechism of the Council !!° 
states that it is a very serious sin to defer the anointing until 
all hope of recovery is gone and the sick person is sinking into 
insensibility. The very first rubric in the Ritual (Tit. ‘‘De 
Extrema Unctione’’) orders the employment of diligence in 
administering this sacrament to the sick and urges that the 
anointing be done while the patient is in the possession of his 
senses. 


In the first Council of Milan, St. Charles Borromeo decreed 
that the Unction be given to the sick man ‘‘dum integris est 
sensibus.’’!41. He repeated this legislation in the fifth Council 
of Milan 1!2 and included it in his ‘‘Instructiones’’ upon the 
Sacrament of Extreme Unction.4? Similar enactments were 
made by the Councils of Bourges,''* Bordeaux,’ and Rheims,""® 
‘Benedict XIV "7 asked bishops to commend such a timely ad- 
ministration in their synodal legislation. 


There have been two very recent papal pronouncements on 
this point. On May 31, 1921, Pope Benedict XV wrote in an 
apostolic letter entitled ‘* Sodalitatem :’’ 


‘‘Qui in discrimine ultimo versantur, sacri viatici et Extremae 
Unctionis susceptionem ne eo usque remorentur cum sensum amis- 
suri jam sunt, sed contra, quemadmodum Ecclesia docet et prae- 
cipit, iis roborentur sacramentis vixdum, ingravescente morbo, pru- 
dens fiat de periculo mortis judicium.’’118 


110 De Ext. Unct., n. 9 & 14. 

111 Acta Eccl. Mediol., pars I, tom. I, p. 18. 

112 Op. cit., p. 250. 

113 Op. cit., pars IV, tom. I, p. 603. 

114 anno 1584—apud Harduin X, 1489: ‘‘Administretur tempestive a 
sacerdote Extrema Unctio, ita ut Christianus mente adhuc integra 
Sacramenti efficaciam agnoscere possit.’’ 

115 anno 1583—apud Harduin X, 1347: ‘‘Non eo usque differendum est 
dum aeger omnibus paene sensibus destitutus sit.’’ 


116 anno 1583—apud Harduin X, 1288: ‘‘Parochus .... caveat ne vel 
mors Unctionem praeveniat, vel morbo invalescente semimortuus non 
sentiat.’’ 


117 De Syn. Dioc., |. 8, c. 7, n. 4. 
118 A. A. §., XIII, 342. 


282 Extreme Unction 


More recent still is the brief of Pius XI, ‘‘Explorata res est,’’ 
dated February 2, 1923: 


‘In hoe autem potissimum, cum sodalium, tum praecipue zela- 
torum studiosam voluntatem desideramus advocatam, ut exitialem quo- 
quo pacto profligent errorem, ex quo fit ut cum animae detrimento 
sancto oleo ante liniantur infirmi, quam morte imminente, sensus 
paene vel omnino amiserunt. Neque enim, ut sacramentum valide 
liciteque detur, necesse est ut mors proxime secutura timeatur, sed 
satis est ut prudens seu probabile adsit de periculo judicium; quodsi 
in ea rerum condicione corferri debet, in hac conferri utique potest, 
et qui illud curet ministrandum, is Ecclesiae Matris non modo doc- 
trinam sequitur, sed optata pie ac salubriter perficit, ’ 7119 


This canon does not lay an obligation in this regard on any 
particular person by explicit mention. The general term 
‘“‘eurandum’’ includes all who are bound in justice and charity. 
Hence the pastor, the relatives, the physician, the nurse, and 
any others connected with the patient by a special title fall 
within the scope of this obligation. 


A. The duty of the pastor. 

It has already been seen that the pastor is bound to the ac- 
tual administration of Extreme Unction by Canon 939. The 
present prescription binds him to more than a mere administra- 
tion. With all zeal and diligence (‘‘omni studio et diligentia’’ ) 
he is to see that the sick shall receive this sacrament during con- 
sciousness. 

The phrase ‘‘ommi studio et diligentia’’ is far-reaching in 
its meaning. He is to leave nothing undone that will promote 
the timely administration of the sacraments to the sick. 


For this purpose he will lay a remote as well as a proxi- 
mate foundation. He will pave the way by urging his people 
from the pulpit and on other occasions to summon him as soon 
as possible, without any regard to the time of day or the amount 
of inconvenience it may cause him.!2° In his sermons he will 
try to uproot from the popular consciousness the idea that the 
reception of the Unction presages the fatal outcome of the ill- 
ness. He will lay especial stress on the powers of corporal sana- 


119 A. A. S., XV, 105. 
120 Ait. Kom., Tit. I, De Administr. Sac. in Genere, cap. unic., n. 5, 


Obligation Upon the Subject 283 


tion vested in the sacrament, and appeal to their self-interest 
to allow these capabilities an opportunity to aches 

He will use every expedient to find who are sick in his par- 
ish. To this end he will induce the physicians of the locality 
to notify him if his parishioners are among the patients who are 
ovavely ill.*? He will beg his parishioners to tell him of those 
who are afflicted with a fatal disease. He will stand on no cere- 
mony in connection with the reception of this information, but 
will immediately use it by calling without delay upon the sick 
person.!* He will keep a careful watch over the condition of 
the patient, and at the first true sion of danger of death, he 
will administer Extreme Unction.’** 

Very frequently it will become the pastor’s duty to reveal 
to the sick man his perilous condition. Too often the patient is 
deceived by the blandishments of his kindred, the promises of 
his physicians and the astuteness of the devil. When the priest 
perceives such to be the case, he has no alternative than to break 
the news. The rubric of the Ritual just quoted requires this. 
Baruffaldo, in his Commentary on this rubric, notes: ‘Ut 
plurimum qui eraviter et cum periculo mortis laborant, pert- 
eulum proprium ignorant, seque dicunt bene sentire: quod ma- 


121 Cf, IIT Synod of Rochester (1914), n. 340: ‘‘Cum saepe contingat, 
apud fideles nostrorum temporum, quod Extremam Unctionem con- 
siderant quasi nuntium mortis instanter impendentis et nullo modo 
velut medium  illius praecavendae, studeant parochi, in suis ad 
populum sermonibus, hujusmodi terrorem mitigare, et ad maturam 
hujus sacramenti receptionem fideles adhortari, eos docendo non 
solum de ejusdem spirituali utilitate sed etiam, licet secundo loco, 
de auxilio, quod praestat, ad sanitatem corporis recuperandam.”’ 
(Acta Syn. Roffensis Tertiae, p. 78.) 

Also Synod of Kansas City, Mo., (1912), n. 124: ‘‘Studeant igitur 
animarum curatores repellere insulsissimam opinionem, ne supersti- 
tionem dicamus, inter non paucos vigentem, quod receptio illius 
sacramenti sit mortis impendentis indicium.’’ (Decreta Syn. Dioe. 
Kansanop. Il, p. 52.) 

In the nineteenth century this had been prescribed by the Pro- 
vincial Council of Aix, held in 1850: e. 6—‘‘Curent etiam crebris 
admonitionibus imperitum vulgus ab illa inani et impia opinione 
abducere, qua plerique de virtute hujusce sacramenti inepta sentiunt, 
perinde ac si mortem aegris acceleret.’’? (Coll. Lac., t. TV Teor. 
992-3.) ; 

122 Cf. Micheletti, De Pastore Animarum, 0. 410. 

123 Rit. Rom., Tit. V, ¢. 4, n. 1. Cf. Council of Rheims (1583), apud 
Harduin X, 1288; Council of Bois-le-duc, apud Van Espen, Jus 
Hecles. Univ., Pars Il, sec. I, tit. VIII, ‘cap. prow los alse 
II, Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 306, 

124 Rit. Rom., Tit. V, ¢. 4, a. 10, 





284 Extreme Unction 


xima fallacia est. Hine originem habet illa tarditas in recipien- 
dis Sacramentis, adeo ut sint haee postea ministranda festinan- 
ter, imo praecipitanter, et quandoque dum infirmus non tota 
mente sanus et integer est. Quapropter parocho incumbit (si 
nullus adsit qui hoe officum praestare velit) veritatem infirmo 
revelare, et statum periculosum aperire, ut sedulo cogitet ea, 
quae pro salute animae necessaria sunt. Scio equidem odiosum 
esse hoe officium, sed praestat ut tale sit.’’?*° 


It is needless to say that this information must be given the 
patient in a very prudent and diplomatic fashion. The pastor 
should not pattern himself after Isaias boldly telling Ezechias, 
the king: ‘‘Haec dicit Dominus Deus, ‘Praecipe domui tuae, 
morieris enim tu et non vives.’’’1°° gradually and gently it 
should be impressed upon the mind of the patient that he is in 
such a state of sickness as to warrant the administration of the 
last sacraments. Pastoral prudence will determine very often 
how this should be said. Petrus Dens goes to some lengths in 
laying down a very commendable mode of procedure: 


‘‘Tta vero procedant necesse est, ut infirmus inde non gravetur, 
sed e contra solatium et fiduciam concipiat: quapropter ad eum 
aceedentes quandoque a longe incipere debent, inquirendo de statu 
et causa morbi; deinde paulatim progrediendum est dicendo morbos 
aeque ac sanitatem ex Dei providentia nobis obvenire; imo qui hodie 
sani sumus eras infirmos esse posse; sanos igitur aeque ac aegrotos 
semper ad mortem paratos esse debere; felices esse qui per morbum 
praemonentur, ideoque morbos merito misericordias Domini vocari; 


nihil porro plus conducere ad morbos patienter tolerandos, imo supe- 
randos, quam recursum ad Deum et ad Ecclesiae Sacramenta; Ex- 


tremam quidem Unctionem id speciale habere quod sanitatem re- 
stituat si infirmo utile fuerit, ideoque consultum esse ut eam suscipere 
non differat.’’127 


The pastor’s duty is far from finished, if he admonishes the 
sick man of his danger, only to find him reluctant to receive the 
sacrament. The Ritual itself gives the mode of procedure: 
‘‘Tune non omnino desperanda res est, sed quamdiu ille vivit, 
repetendae sunt frequentes variae et efficaces Sacerdotum et alio- 


125 Ad. Rit. Rom. Comm., tom. I, tit. xxx, n. 31. 

126 IV Regum, XX, 1; Cf. Benedict XIV, Institutiones, xxii, n. 9 sqq., 
for arguments of Galen and Augenius as to what should be done. 

127 Theol. Mech., ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ p. 56-7, 





Obligation Upon the Subject 285 


rum piorum hominum exhortationes; proponendaque aeternae 
salutis damna, et sempiternae mortis supplicia ; ostendendaque 
immensa Dei misericordia, eum ad poenitentiam provocantis, 
ad ignoscendum paratissimi.’’ '* 


Lehmkuhl !2° thinks that it is seriously incumbent upon the 
pastor to endeavor to induce a reluctant patient to receive the 
sacrament. Apostolic zeal is not easily rebuffed; and serious 
obligations are not relieved by a mere refusal to allow them 
to be discharged. Repugnance or reluctance often springs from 
error; and in reality there is frequently no intention of rejecting 
the sacraments finally and absolutely. A steady bombardment 
of gentle exhortation should be trained against these barriers 
of superstition and prejudice, not only by the priest but by 
others of pious character. Little by little the patient has to be 
disengaged of the inane notion that Extreme Unction is an aug- 
ury of death. For this purpose the possibility of corporal cure 
from the sacrament should be greatly emphasized.18° The Coun- 
cil of Pavia, held in 850, urged the pastor to invite the neigh- 
boring priests to come to his assistance in his difficulty.43! Re- 
course to prayer, both public and private, is also advised by the 
Ritual,18? but the reputation of the sick man must be sedulously 
guarded if the prayer 1s publicly made when his refusal 1s 
occult. Hence the petition must be couched in extremely gen- 
eral terms in such a case, ase. g., prayers for an urgent special 
intention, &e. 

If the man is given scandal by his refusal, special efforts 
should be spent in an endeavor to win him to conversion.'33 In 





128 Rit. Rom., Tit. V, c. 4, n. 11. 

129 Th. M., II, 727—Casus Consc., LL) 611: 

130 Cf, Council of Langres, anno 1404: ‘<Dicendum est eis [i. e., qui 
differunt hujus sacramenti receptionem] quod non debent dubitare 
quod per receptionem hujus sacramenti veniat mors, verum potius 
veniet utraque sanitas mentis et corporis, si devote et digne re- 
cipiant.’’? (apud De Sainte-Beuve, De Eaxtr. Unct., disp. VII, art. 
2—Migne, Curs. Theol. Comp., vol. XXIV, col. 121-2.) 

131 Capitulum 8: ‘‘Sed quia frequenter contingit, ut aegrotus aliquis aut 
sacramenti vim nesciat, aut minus periculosam reputans infirmitatem 
salutem suam operari dissimulet, aut certe morbi violentia oblivi- 
seatur: debet eum loci presbyter congruenter admonere, quatenus 
ad hane spiritualem curam secundum propriae possibilitatis vires 
vicinos quoque presbyteros invitet.’? (Harduin V, 27.) 

132 Rit. Rom., tit. V, ¢. 4, n. 11. 

133 Lehmkuhl, Th. M., Il, 727-—Casus Conse., II, 667. 


286 ’ Extreme Unction 


such a ease he is bound sub gravi to receive the sacrament; and 
even if he be in good faith or in invincible ignorance, he should 
be warned of his obligation to permit the unction. 


Sometimes, however, it will be necessary for the priest to ad- 
mit the unsuccessfulness of his best efforts. Despite earnest 
warnings, the sick man will conjure himself into the frame of 
mind that he is not in danger of death, and consequently he will 
refuse to receive Extreme Unction. If such a man is in good 
faith and there is little hope of convincing him of his error, it 
is unwise to change his good faith into bad faith. Such a pa- 
tient will generally show that he is not adverse to religion by 
his reception of Penance and the Eucharist. Moreover it is al- 
ways to be remembered that he is not seriously bound (prac- 
tically) to receive the sacrament of the Unction. In this case 
a priest should try to drive a bargain with the man to allow 
an administration of Extreme Unction after he has lost the use 
of his senses.1°* If he consents, it will be clear that his reluc- 
tance to receive the sacrament in his present condition is spring- 
ing from a superstitious fear, and that there is no contempt 
present. When he sinks into insensibility, this subject can be 
anointed, even though he shows some signs of reluctance. His 
intention of receiving it in this proximate danger of death out- 
weighs the seemingly opposite intention expressed by these 
signs of unwillingness. Generally the reluctance will have its 
origin in an erroneous appreciation of the gravity of the dan- 
ger.188 

Sometimes it may be prudent for a priest not to press the 
question of Unction too much. Refusal to receive may arise from 
a firm belief that it is an unfailing harbinger of death. If it is 
known that the patient’s obstinacy springs from this souree, 
and a priest foresees the failure of his attempts to overcome it, 
he need not be troubled if he omits an insistence of reception. 
““Circumstanees may minimize or entirely remove this obliga- 
tion of the pastor. He has fulfilled his duty when he has done 
his best to persuade the dying person to receive this sacrament, 
which he stands ready to administer if the one in need of it will 





134 Lehmkuhl, Casus Consc., II, 678—Hanley, Treatise on the Sac. of Ext. 
Unct., p. 44. 
135 Noldin, De Sac., 41, 4. 


Obligation Upon the Subject 287 


consent to receive it.’’ 126 In this case, too, the adherence of the 
patient to the faith will evidence itself by a reception of Pen- 
ance and the Eucharist. Often patients of this kind are not to 
be blamed too severely. They do not really commit a mortal sin 
by their refusal. They do not believe that Extreme Unc- 
tion will really cause their death, but, ‘‘not being properly in- 
structed in the knowledge of its effects, they have accustomed 
themselves to the opinion that its reception means that all hope 
of recovery must be abandoned.’’ 187 Such a state of mind, 
since it results from ignorance, is not grievously sinful. Ac- 
cordingly Penance and the Eucharist can be given to them 
without scruple.1% 


A eaution should be added against annoying the sick man 
with too many exhortations to receive this sacrament. In this 
way a priest can very easily become a ‘‘persona non Sane, IRS, 
the patient. Obstinate inmates in hospitals must be handled 
with an extra degree of prudence; for the hospital authorities 
are apt to forbid all access of the priest to them, asserting that 
their well-being is being interfered with and their hopes of re- 
covery being frustrated.1*? 


We have seen by Canon 939 that those who neglect to ad- 
minister this sacrament altogether are guilty of mortal sin. We 
have seen, too, by this canon that a priest is bound to inform 
souls under his charge of their state of sickness, if it is not al- 
ready known, so that they may be able to receive the sacraments 
in due season. The question now arises as to how much delay on 
the part of the pastor is required to constitute a serious sin, when 
the sacrament, though requested, is deferred for a time. In 
other words, how soon after its petition must the sacrament be 
administered? Can the pastor delay its administration as long 
as he pleases, provided, of course, that there is no serious dan- 





136 The Casuist, V, p. 234. 

137 The Casuist, V, p. 234. 

138 Even the form ‘‘Corpus Domini DNJC’’ can be substituted for the 
regula formula prescribed for Viaticum, ‘¢Aceipe frater viaticum,’’ 
if the latter will disturb the patient (Cf. Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. 
Th. M.,. 11; 188). 

139 Casuist, l.c.; cf. Berardi’s fine advice, Prax. Conf., II, n. 5010. 


'288 Extreme Unction 


ger of the man dying without the sacrament? This point has 
been touched upon in the treatment of canon 939.149 It re- 
mains to be developed a little more at present. 


Before the Council of Trent, those who belonged to the 
school of Scotus delayed administration of the sacrament until 
the person was no longer capable of committing venial sin. This 
was simply the logical sequel to the theory of the Doctor Subtilis 
that the principal effect of Extreme Unction was the remission 
of venial sin.1*! Since the days of the great Council, however, 
the Church has urged a much earlier administration of this 
gift of God. Thus the Catechism of the Council 142 condemned as 
guilty of most serious sin those who deferred the administration 
of Unetion until the time when, ‘‘omni salutis spe amissa, vita 
et sensibus carere incipiat.’’ In the Fifth Council of Milan, St. 
Charles Borromeo gave the following warning: ‘‘Caveat paro- 
chus ne in eo ministrando negligentiam, ullamve morae culpam 
contrahat. Alioqui si.ad illius administrationem accersitus ire 
neglexerit, cum rationem Deo reddet, tum poena ad Episcopo 
graviter plectatur.’’ 148 Priests were urged by this Council 144 
and that ef Bois-le-due ™ to take as their exemplar a bishop 
named Malachias. This holy man had the unhappiness of learn- 
ing that a woman had died without the sacraments through his 
negligence. Overwhelmed with grief, he implored heaven with 
tears and sighs throughout the entire night, until a compas- 
sionate God took cognizance of the grief of His servant and re- 
joined the soul and body of the dead woman. After receiving 
the sacrament from the bishop, she recovered from her disease. 


The legislation of local Councils has shown how contrary it 
is to the wish of the Church that Extreme Unction be in any 
way delayed. Thus the Synod of Benevento in 16928 stated in 
its constitutions that culpable negligence in administration in- 


140 Cf. supra, Chap. IV, p. 

141 RKeportata Parisiensia, d. xiii, q. unica. 

142 De Ext. Unct., n. 9. 

143 Acta Eccl. Mediol., pars I, tom. I, p. 250. 

144 Te, 

145 apud Van Espen, Jus Can. Univ., P. II, s. I, tit. 8, cap. 3, n. 14, 


Obligation Upon the Subject 289 


volved a very serious default of duty.14* In similar fashion the 
second Council of Baltimore evidenced the mind of the Church: 
‘‘Neque dubium est contra morem mentemque Sanctae Matris 
Ecclesiae agere sacerdotem, qui expectat donee aegrotus in agone 
mortis jaceat ut eum Sacro Oleo inungat.’’ ** 


The pastor’s duty is to give the sacraments to those rea- 
sonably seeking them, unless a just cause excuses. Surely the 
reasonableness of the request cannot be called into question when 
the sacrament is petitioned at the very time the Church wishes 
it to be administered. As a consequence any serious delay, es- 
pecially when it endangers the probability of reception while the 
patient is still conscious, is grievously wrong.!48 The amount 
of usefulness ordinarily obtainable by an opportune administra- 
tion will determine the gravity of the sin. Hence a delay 
which imperils to an appreciable extent the powers of sanation 
or the comfort in the last agony given by the sacrament de- 
prives the sick man of great graces, and makes the pastor rec- 
reant to his duty in a grave matter. 


Serious reasons will release a pastor from immediate ad- 
ministration, if it is morally certain that it can be conferred 
before death. They need not be as serious as those which ex- 
cuse him from administering the sacrament altogether, but they 
must be genuinely and proportionately grave. A, serious reason 
would be e. g., if the priest’s life or liberty were in peril by 
walking through the street during the day, and consequently 
when it would be wiser to take advantage of the cover of night 
in order to approach the sick man. 


It does not follow, however, that a priest must always be 
convicted of serious delinquency of duty if he fail to confer the 
Sacrament at the very hour or even on the very day that he 
realizes that his client is in probable or remote danger of death. 


146 Tit. 7, c. 1: ‘‘Non est sine animadversione praetereundum a Paro- 
chorum quamplurimis, extremace Unctionis Sacramentum collaturis, 
ex culpabili negligentia illud differri donec aegrotus, amissis sensibus, 
animam agere incipiat: quod (ut Catechismo Romano admonentur) 
jus sacramenti gratiam perecipiendam plurimum valere, si aegrotus, 
cum in eo integra mens et ratio viget fidemque et religiosam volun- 
tatem afferri potest, sacro oleo liniantur.’’ (Coll. Lac., t. I, col. 30). 

147 n. 306. 

148 Fanfani, De Jure Parochorum, 239 b; Kenrick, Th. M., III, ‘‘ De Ext. 
Unet.,’’ cap. unic., n. 20; Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., Il, 422. 


290 Extreme Unction 


It may be morally certain, especially in lingering diseases as 
consumption or cancer, that no considerable change will occur 
before the next visit of the priest. In such cases it can hardly 
be maintained that the priest is gravely recreant to his trust, al- 
though if there is no good reason for the delay, it is hard to 
see how any neglect is altogether blameless.1*? 

A check on the fulfillment of this duty of administering the 
sacraments to the sick by pastors is to be made by the vicar 
forane of the district.%° ~Benedict XIV also prescribed epis- 
eopal vigilance in this regard! On the occasion of the official 
visitation the bishop should take special pains to learn ‘‘an 
aegrotantibus et in extremo vitae agone laborantibus debita 
spiritualia subsidia praestet, et sacramenta Keclesuae tempe- 
stive conferat.’’ 

The Code prescribes the mode of procedure to be employed 
by the Ordinary against pastors who have been gravely negli- 
gent in the administration of the sacraments and in assistance to 
the sick.52 It is prescribed by the thirty-second title of the 
fourth book—‘‘De modo procedendi contra parochum in adim- 
plendis paroecialibus officiis negligentem.’’ 1°? The pastor is to 
be warned by the bishop first, who shall recall to the pastor’s 
mind the strict obligations that are his and the severe penalties 
to which he is exposing himself. Such a monition is not a pa- 
ternal, but a canonical one, made in accordance with Canon 2143. 
Tf emendation does not follow, the Ordinary shall ensure himself 
of the certainty of the grave omission for a notable length of 
time,154 and of the lack of a sufficient cause to extenuate this 





149 Cf. Barry, ‘‘The Subjects of Extreme Unction,’’ in the I. E. Record, 
Vol. XXVI, Fifth Series (1925), pp. 63-64. 

150 Can. 447, paragr. 1, n. 1. 

151 Const. ‘‘ Firmandis,’’ Nov. 6, 1744, n. 9—C. I. C. Fontes, n. 349. Prior 
to this St. Charles had decreed in the Fourth Provincial Council of 
Milan that rural deans should require from the pastors of their 
respective districts a report of those who had died during the in- 
terval between reports, including among the information given the 
fact whether or not the patients had been given the sacraments 
opportunely and whether the pastor had been present when death 
occurred. Negligent pastors were to be reported by the dean to 
the bishop. (Acta Eccl. Mediol., t. I, p. 148). 

152 Can. 2382. 

153 Cann. 2182-5. 

154 Vermeersch-Creusen, Epit., III, 371; Cf. 8S. C. Consist., 20 Aug., 1910, 
A. A. 8., II, 638. One month is a notable length of time, accord- 
ing to Vermeersch-Ureusen, lc. 


Obligation Upon the Subject 291 


action on the part of the pastor. If both of these are verified, 
a consultation should be held with two examiners and the pas- 
tor must be given a chance to defend himself. If he is deemed 
guilty, the Ordinary shall mete out a punishment commensurate 
with the seriousness of the neglect. Even suspension does not 
seem beyond the powers of the bishop at this stage, provided 
that the gravity of the crime warrants it.’°° 

If these measures prove ineffectual, the bishop shall again 
summon the examiners to discuss the case and provide the pastor 
with another opportunity of self-defense. Should it be shown 
that this same culpable neglect of duty continues, the bishop 
can remove a removable pastor from his parish without further 
procedure. If the pastor is irremovable, the bishop shall deprive 
him of all or of part of his income, according to the grievousness 
of the offense, and distribute this to the poor. The continuance 
of this misconduct on the part of an irremovable pastor after 
this deprivation of salary, will, after a procedure identical with 
the former ones, result in the pastor’s removal from his parochial 
benefice.°? 


B. The duties of others in charge of the sick. 


Not only the pastor, but all others bound to the patient by 
a title other than that of common charity are obligated especially 
by this canon to use all care and diligence in providing the 
timely administration of Extreme Unction for the sick man. 
Parents, children, superiors, consorts, doctors, nurses, infirmar- 
ians, &c., come within the scope of our investigation. A distine- 
tion of the utmost importance must be made immediately be- 
tween those who are bound by special title to the spiritual care 
of the sick, such as parents, children, consorts, superiors, and 
those who are bound ex officio only to the corporal welfare of 
the patient, such as physicians, surgeons, nurses, &e. 

It must be noted too that we are not treating here of the 
obligation of advising the sick that he is in danger of death. 
We are considering simply the duty of procuring for the sick 
man the sacrament of Extreme Unction specifically. By the 





155 Cf. Canon 2309. 
156 Can. 1933, 4—Augustine, 4 Commentary, VIII, p. 467. 
157 Can, 2180, 


292 Extreme Unction 


law of nature the physician is bound primarily and sub gravi 
to announce to the patient that he is in danger of death. This 
warning can be made personally or thru others, such as the pas- 
tor, the relatives, &c. When they are reluctant, this obligation 
becomes strictly personal.°8 He is excused from this only when 
he is morally certain that the sick man is in the state of grace 
and has made settlement of his temporal affairs; or when it 1s 
clear that, even when advised, he would persevere in his sin, 
spurn the sacraments, and make no further disposition of his 
temporalities.1°? 

If the physician refuses to do his ae the obligation be- 
comes incumbent upon the patient’s relatives or his superior, all 
of whom are bound ex officio to him. When these, too, refuse to 
break the news, the pastor must take upon himself this unplea- 
sant task. 

- This, however, is not strictly the paerinth Here the force 
of the obligation on these persons is sought only in regard to 
procuring for the patient the Sacrament of Extreme Unction— 
a sacrament, be it remembered, that he is not bound to receive 
under pain of mortal sin. 

Those who have the spiritual care of the sick by a special 
title are certainly obliged to procure for their charges the sac- 
rament of the Unction when that sacrament is petitioned. In 
the opinion of Noldin,!®° Lehmkuhl,!*! Aartnys,’® and Gury- 
Ferreres'® this obligation is grave. Lehmkuhl and Gury-Fer- 
reres extend the obligation not only to those cases where the sac- 
rament is sought explicitly or implicitly, but also to the in- 
stanees where it would be requested, if the seriousness of the sit- 
uation were known by the sick man, 1. e., where it is sought inter- 
pretatively.1% Lehmkuhl'® and Sebastiani’® further assert that 
there is even a duty upon those bound to the spiritual care of the 


158 Noldin, De Praeceptis, 746; Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., IL, 21; 
Gury, Th. M., II, 31-3. 

159 Noldin, l/.c., Genicot-Salsmans, l.c. 

160 De Sac., 446. 

CASTES A ee” ony Way &¥e 

162 Th. M., II, 369. 

163 Casus Conse., II, n. 808. 

164 Cf. Lehmkuhl, l.e.; Gury-Ferreres, l.c.; Prov. Cone, Amer, Lat., n, 564; 
See, Manilanen., n. 668. 





165 
166 roti Th, M., n, 512. - 


Obligation Upon the Subject 293 


sick to endeavor to induce the sick man not to neglect such a 
great spiritual good, so exceedingly useful in the last fight for 
salvation. 

On the other hand Suarez,!67 Laymann,!®* Babenstuber,'* 
Elbel-Bierbaum 17° and Ballerini-Palmieri 1”! teach that the neg- 
ligence of procuring the sacrament for the sick man is venial, 
even if it is done without reasonable cause. Moreover, contrary 
to the opinion of Lehmkuhl and Sebastiani, Kenrick 172 holds 
that neglect to urge upon a sick man, otherwise prepared, the 
reception of Extreme Unction is not a serious sin. The sick man, 
it is argued, has no serious obligation of receiving the sacrament. 
Those in charge of the sick cannot reasonably be said to have | 
a greater obligation to procure it for the man than he himself 
has to receive it. 


Both opinions are probable, with the consequence, of course, 
that no strict obligation can be imposed upon such people in 
regard to the sacrament of Extreme Unction. Per accidens, 
however, all concede that the obligation can become grave. Such 
an oceasion occurs if there is danger of contempt or scandal, 
or if Extreme Unction is the only certain means of salvation for 
the patient. 

In regard to those who have not the spiritual care of the 
sick man, as doctors, nurses, infirmarians, etc., little need be said, 
except in an historical way. 


Of old it was not permitted to physicians to undertake the 
eure of the bodily illness of the patient until the man had reme- 
died his spiritual ills by going to confession. This law was first 
promulgated by the Fourth Council of Lateran, held in 1219, 
under Innocent III.172 In 1311 Clement V renewed this Con- 
stitution in the Council of Ravenna.t** Pius V in 1566 made 
the law still stricter by compelling all physicians to swear prior 
to reception of the degree of doctor of medicine that they would 


167 D, 44, s. 1, n. 6. 

eeThooM 1. Sastre 8c. Tn. 2, 

169 Ethica Supernat., tr. 8, p. 6, disp. 7, a. 1, n. 5. 
170 Th. M., III, (Pars VIII, Conf. X) n. 233. 

171 Op. Theol. Mor., tom. V, tr. X, sect. VI, n. 58, xix. 
172 Th. M., ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ ITI, cap. unic., n. 22. 
173 ¢, 13,. X, de Paenitent., V, 38. 

174 Rubrica 15, de Paenitentiis; Harduin, VII, 1367, 


294 Extreme Unction 


advise all patients seeking their care to request spiritual aid, 
and if any patient failed to do so within three days they would 
cease their professional attention to such a man.’ Gregory 
XIII 176 forbade the employment of Jew and infidel physicians, 
and confirmed at the same time the foregoing decrees in all 
their vigor. 

As a consequence of this legislation, it is not strange to find 
that old canonists and theologians discussed the obligation of the 
physician in instances of this kind.‘ In many places such 
decrees were never put into effect; while in other localities time 
mellowed the harshness of their prescriptions.1"’ Today such 
laws are nowhere in force, but there remains the divine and nat- 
ural precept binding each one to prevent a serious loss to his 
neighbor, if it can be conveniently done. 

Petrus Dens 1” thinks a physician is bound by virtue of his 
office to procure the eternal salvation of his patient. Hence he 
condemns as grievously sinful the negligence of a physician 
which causes the loss of Extreme Unction to the sick person. 
This seems too much. <A physician has not the spiritual care 
of the sick man. His duty concerns the well-being of the body, 
not of the soul. Hence he is bound only by the precept of com- 
mon charity toward the spiritual welfare of his patient. Such 
an obligation in charity cannot be greater upon him than the 
obligation on the sick man of charity towards himself (erga se). 
It has already been seen that the sick man’s obligation is per se 
venial. Accordingly, it must be conceded that the physician is 
not bound grievously in this matter. 

It is needless to remark that what has been said of the phy- 
sician’s obligation applies equally well to that of nurses and 
others who have not the spiritual care of the sick. Only in the 
case where Extreme Unction is the sole means of salvation can 


175 Const. ‘‘ Supra gregem,’’ 8 Mar. 1566, § 3—Bull. Tauwr. Edit., VII, 430. 

176 Const., ‘‘ Alias,’’ 30 Maii, 1581—Bull. Taur. Edit., VIII, 371 sqq. 

1177 OF 80.2; Schmalzgrueber, Jus Ecc. Univ., Vol. ah pp. 351-2, n. 101-2; 
Diana, Opera Coord., tom. IS raise res. 198-9, 

178 St. Alphonsus, Lh. Ms VI, 664; Noldin, De Praec., 746; Genicot-Sals 
mans, Inst. Th. M., PBR NG footnote. 

179 Theol. Mech., ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ N. 10, p, 56, 


Obligation Upon the Subject 295 


a grave obligation be put upon these persons. Such a econtin- 
gency arises when a man, attrite for his sins, becomes uncon- 
scious before confession has been made. Here charity requires 
that our neighbor be succored in his dire necessity—and conse- 
quently failure in this regard would entail serious sin.15° 





180 Noldin, De Sac., 446. 


Saat’ a 
} ah wy 










P i ae e 





CHAPTER X. 


THE BLESSING OF THE OIL 


CANON 945, 


Oleum olivarum, in sacramento Extremae Unctionis 
adhibendum, debet esse ad hoc benedictum ab Episcopo, 
vel a presbytero qui facultatem illud benedicendi a Sede 
Apostolica obtinuerit. 


| 297 | 





(% 
a 


7 





i 
—s 


2 
; : 


CHAPTER X. 


The third chapter of the Title on Extreme Unction in the 
Code has to do with the rites and the ceremonies of that sacra- 
ment. It contains three canons, two of which are devoted to the 
remote matter and the third to the proximate matter of the 
sacrament. 

We have already learned that olive oil is the remote mat- 
ter of this sacrament.t We have learned too, that there is a 
need of some kind of blessing. We ean pass over these points, 
therefore, and address ourselves immediately to a consideration 
of the nature or quality of the blessing required. 

No evidence can be gathered from Seripture; but Tradition 
constantly and consistently avers that an episcopal benediction 
of the oil is essential. As far back as 390 A. D., the second Coun- 
eil of Carthage * forbade a presbyter to bless the Oleum Infir- 
morum. Shortly afterwards this prescription was confirmed by 
the third Council of Carthage: (398) ‘‘Presbyter, inconsulto 
episcopo, . . . chrisma vero nunquam conficiat.’’> Evidently 
in Spain priests were trying to usurp this episcopal prerogative, 
for the First Council of Toledo,* held in the year 400, legislates 
against such an abuse. A few years later, Innocent I, in his 
letter in Decentius® wrote that the sick should be anointed 
‘“saneto oleo ab Episcopo confecto.’’? The Council of Braga ® in 


1 Cf. supra, chap. I, sect. IV, p. 24; and also chap. IT, p. 72. 

2 can. 3—apud Harduin I, 952; Mansi II, 693; ¢. 1, C. XXVI, q. 6. 

3c, 2, C. XXVI, q. 6—also apud Harduin I, 964, Mansi II, 885. 

4 Cap. XX (apud Mansi II, 1002)—‘‘Quamvis pene ubique custodiatur 
ut absque Episcopo Chrisma nemo conficiat; tamen quia in aliquibus 
locis, vel Provinciis, Prebyteri dicuntur Chrisma conficere, placuit 
ex hae die nullum alium, nisi episcopum Chrisma facere et per 
dioecesim destinare.’’—N. B. Altho this may apply to the chrism 
used in Baptism, nevertheless the oil of the sick was commonly 
called chrisma in those early days, Cf. supra, chap. I, sect. I, p. 4; 
UAC 0. 40, Gratin 10, 

5 Ep. ‘* Si instituta ecclesiastica,’’? 19 Mar. 416, cap. 8—C. I. C. Fontes, 
hed 42h 

6 can. 19 (apud Harduin III, 352): ‘Item placuit ut si quis presbyter, 
post hoe interdictum, ausus fuerit chrisma benedicere, aut ecclesiam 
aut altare consecrare, a suo officio deponatur: nam et antiqui hoc 
canones vetuerunt.’’ 





[ 299 ] 


300 Extreme Unction 


Portugal (561) ordered priests who dared to confect the chrism 
to be deposed. Similarly, the Council of Seville 7 in Spain (619) 
reserved the consecration of the sick man’s oil to the Bishop. 


St. Bede remarks, in his Commentary on the sixth chapter 
of the Gospel of St. Mark,® that the custom of anointing the sick 
with consecrated oil has descended from the Apostles themselves 
and is of divine institution. In, the ninth century the Councils 
of Chalons-sur-Saone ® (813) and Aachen 7° (836) mention only 
the bishop as minister of the benediction of the oils, while the 
Synod of Worms'! (868) employs the very words of the letter of 
Innocent I in this regard. Shortly afterwards, Jonas, the Bishop 
of Orleans, sternly rebuked those who sought the aids of divina- 
‘tion when sick, and urged them to comply with the Apostolic tra- 
dition ‘‘ut . . . quilibet aegroti ungantur oleo pontificals bene- 
dictione consecrato.** 


Though quite unnecessary, the great authority of the Schol- 
astics can be invoked in this matter. All of them held that the 
power of blessing this oil belongs properly to the bishop alone— 
and this in spite of the fact that the opposite opinion had been 
already expressed by Bonizone im the eleventh; century.'? Hear 
the Master of the Sentences: ‘‘Unctio illa fieri non potest nisi 
de oleo ab episcopo consecrato ; ideoque illa sanctificatio ad vir- 
tutem sacramenti pertinere videtur.’’** With him agreed the 
great doctors of the School, Blessed Albertus Magnus,*® Thomas 
of A qnin, Apt. Bonaventure,!7 Dominic Soto,’® Dionysius the 
Carthusian,!® and Durandus.”° 


— 


7 Cap. 7—Harduin III, 559-60. 

8 Ad vers. 13,—M. P. L. 92, 188B. 

9 Can. 48—apud Harduin IV, 1040. 

10 Cap. 2, tit. 8—apud Harduin IV, 1395. 

11 cap. 72—apud Harduin V, 746. 

12 De Instit. Laicali, lib. 3, cap. 14—M. P. L., 106, 260. 

13 M. P. L., 150, 864B—‘‘ Hoe [i. e. oleum infirmorum] omni tempore inter 
missarum solemnia a presbyteris in eo loco, ubi sic legitur: ‘Per 
quem haec omnia bona creas,’ solebat consecrari. Nun¢ vero a 
solis episcopis in eodem loco missae in Coena Domini consecratur.’’ 

14 Lib. IV Sent., dist. XXIII, apud M. P. L., 192, 900. 

15 Comm. in lib. IV Sent., dist. 23, a. 3, ad qu. 2. 

16 Suppl., q. 29, a. 6. 

17 Comm. in IV Sent., dist. 23, a. 1. qu. 3, ad 7. 

18 Comm. in IV Sent., dist. 23, a. 1, a. 3. 

19 Comm. in IV Sent., dist. 23, q. 2. 

20 Comm. in IV Sent., dist. 23, q. 2, ad 2. 








The Blessing of the Oil 301 


Innocent IIT prescribed that the Waldensians should make 
a statement of reverence towards the Unction of the sick ‘‘cum 
oleo consecrato;’’ 24 while Eugene IV, in the Couneil of Florence, 
proclaimed to the Armenians that the matter of Extreme Unc- 
tion was ‘‘oleum olivae per episcopum benedictum.”’ ** 

It is small wonder then that the Council of Trent should de- 
elare ‘“‘intellexit Ecclesia materiam esse oleum ab episcopo bene- 
dictum ;’’23 and that seventy years later Paul V should cate- 
eorize as ‘‘reckless and proximately erroneous’’ the proposition 
that Extreme Unction might be validly administered ‘‘oleo bene- 
dictione episcopali non consecrato.’’*4 And truly, in view of 
such an imposing array of evidence affirming the necessity of 
an episcopal blessing, it becomes apparent how ‘‘reckless and 
proximately erroncous’’ it is to assert the possibility of confect- 
ing the sacrament with oil blessed by other than a bishop. In- 
deed the testimony seemed so formidable to Coninck,?> Estius,?® 
and Suarez 27 that they denied even to the Pope the power to 
appoint a simple priest to bless the oil. 

Yet when we look into the ceremonies of the Greek rite, we 
discover that from the earliest times priests have been blessing 
the Oleum Infirmorwm. Thus the Penitential of St. Theodore, 
the archbishop of Canterbury, contained the following state- 
ment: ‘‘Secundum Graecos presbytero licet . . . facere oleum 
exoreizatum et infirmis chrisma, si necesse est. Secundum Ro- 
manos non licet nisi episcopo soli.’’8 The antiquity of this 
Greek custom is also emphasized by John Nathaniel writing to 
the Archbishop of Anagni*® and by Leo Allatius.®° It can also be 
read in the Greek ‘‘Euchologion’’ under the title ‘‘Officium 
Sancti Olei.?? Not alone among the Greeks, but also among the 
Armenians this practice has long obtained. Pope John XXII 





21 Ep. ‘‘Ejus exemplo,’’ 18 Dec. 1208, Professio fidei Waldensibus, 
praeser.: ‘‘Unctionem infirmorum cum oleo consecrato veneramur.’’ 
C. I. C. Fontes n. 30. 

2 Const. ‘‘Exultate Deo,’’ Nov. 22, 1439, paragr. 14, C. I. C. Fontes, 52. 

3 Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct., cap. 1. 

4 Denziger-Bannwart, Enchirid., n. 1628: also Coll, n. 956. 

5 De Sac. et Censuris, t. II, disp. 19, de Ext. Unct., dub 2, n. 6. 

6 Comm. in IV Sent., dist. 23, paragr. 9. 

7 D. 40, sec. 1, n. 8. 

Bee. P2499," 929. 

29 Arcudius, De Concordia Eccl. Occtd., &e., LDV Gus. 

30 Eccl. Occid. et Orient. Consens., 1. III, cap. 16. 


302 Extreme Unction 


noted it in a letter to Ossinius, the King of Armenia: ‘‘Tpsi etiam 
Sacerdotes Oleum, quod Infirmorum dicitur, consecrant pro Sa- 
cramento Extremae Unctionis, cum tamen apud nos ad Episco- 
pos solos spectet.’’ 3! Nor has such a custom flourished because 
of an official oversight of Rome, or in spite of a disapproval of 
the Pope; for time after time various Pontiffs have gloriously 
vindicated to them the legitimacy of their actions. 


Thirty years after the Council of Trent had instructed 


Catholies that the matter of Extreme Unetion was ‘‘oleum ab 


Episcopo benedictum,’’ Clement VIII%? confirmed to Italo- 
Greek priests the power to bless this oil. Yet Paul V, his almost 
immediate successor, condemned as rash and proximate to error 
the proposition that Extreme Unetion could be validly admin- 
istered ‘‘Oleo episcopali benedictione non conseecrato.’’?°%> In 
the next century Benedict XIV renewed the decree of Clement 
VIII for the localities in which the eustom was still in vogue,*4 
and in an encyclical letter to the Uniat Greeks a few years later 
bemoaned the woeful ignorance displayed by Western theolo- 
gians in regard to the customs of the Eastern rites.°> At the 
time of the French Revolution, the Holy See was asked to per- 
mit priests in France to bless the Oleum Infirmorum. Pius VI 
denied this request because of want of precedent and lack of 


31 Benedict XIV, De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, c. 1, n. 4. 


32 Instr. ‘‘ Sanctissimus,’’ Aug. 31, 1595, paragr. 3—C. I. C. Fontes, n. 
179: ‘*Non sunt cogendi Presbyteri Graeci Olea Sancta praeter 
Chrisma ab Episcopis Latinis Dioecesanis accipere, eum hujusmodi 
Olea ab eis, in ipsa Oleorum et Sacramentorum exhibitione, ex veteri 
Ritu conficiantur, seu benedicantur.’’ 

33 Denziger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 1628. 


84 Const. ‘‘Htst pastoralis,’’ 26 Maii, 1742, paragr. IV, n. 1—O. I. C. 
Fontes 328. 

85 Ep. eneycl. ‘‘Ha quo,’’ 1 Mar. 1756 parag. 7—apud Coll. Lae. t. II, 
col. 538-9; also apud Bened. XIV Bullarium, tom. 4, vol. XI, p. 295: 
‘‘Injusta quippe et fallax Ecelesiaeque paci atque unitati contraria 
est eorum judicandi ratio, qui Latinorum tantummodo ritualium 
notitiam habentes nec aliud seientes praeter ea, quae tradiderunt 
nonnulli ex nostris scriptoribus nostrarum quidem rerum periti sed 
Graecarum consuetudinum rudes ejusque rationis ignari, quam semper 
cum ipsis secuta est apostolica Romana Sedes, non dubitarunt dam- 
nare, in sacris Graecorum ritibus ea omnia quae cum Latino ritu 
conformia et consentanea non reperiebant.’’ 


The Blessing of the Oil 303 


necessity, without however asserting the incompetency of priests 
to receive such power.*® 

In 1842 Gregory XVI declared that a pastor could not, even 
in ease of necessity, administer Extreme Unction with oil blessed 
by himself.37 Gregory’s decree was reaffirmed by a decision of 
the Holy Office in 1878, to the effect that the practice of bless- 
ing the oil by one only in priestly orders could not be approved 
or tolerated.28 Yet in 1894 Leo XIII sanctioned the ancient 
practice of the Greeks for various bodies of the Eastern Uniats.*° 
Finally the new Code announces, generally *° in regard to all 
conseerations and specifically in regard to the Oil of the sick, 
that it is quite sufficient for the minister of the blessing to have 
priestly orders and an apostolic indult. 

We have here truly an anomalous situation. Apparently at 
least, the Roman Pontiffs have been continually contradicting 
one another—and that, too, in a matter of gravest importance! 
What explanation can be given, for, even prescinding from the 
protection of the Paraclete, it seems unthinkable that each suc- 
cessive Pontifical decree should have been promulgated with the 
intention, implicit or explicit, of contradicting its predecessor ? 

Several explanations have been suggested. A possible solu- 
tion, proposed by Quinn,‘! may be sketched in this way. With- 
out attempting to solve the question whether the episcopacy and 





36 Const. ‘‘Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum,’’ 28 Maii, 1793, responsum 13: 
‘Cum deprehensum fuerit, insuetum esse in Ecclesia Latina hujus- 
modi potestate simplices presbyteros ab Apostolica Sede insigniri, a 
qua quidem regula eo minus recedi non debere judicatum est, quod 
impossibile non sit, triplex oleum a catholico episcopo benedictum, si 
non ex proximis, ex remotis saltem dioecesibus habere’’ (Bull. Taur. 
Edit., X, 2623— also apud Muhlbauer, Decr. Auth. S. C. &., t. U, 
p. 426). 

Magistretti (Pontificale in Uswm Eccl. Mediolanen., p. 95) de- 
elares that until the eleventh century priests blessed the oil in Milan. 
Pius VI apparently was not aware of any such custom; nor Bene- 
dict XIV, either, for in his ‘‘De Synodo Dioecesana’’—l. 8, ¢. ], 
n. 4—he states the contention of many theologians ‘‘nunquam in 
Ecclesia Latina fuisse aegrotantes oleo inunctos ab Episcopo antea 
non consecrato.’’ 

37 §. C. S. Off., 14 Sept., 1842—Coll., n. 956; Denziger-Bannwart, Hn- 
chirid., n. 1629. 

38 §. C. S. Off., May 15, 1878—Coll. 8. C. P. F., n. 1494. 

39 Litt. ap. ‘‘Orientalium,’’ Nov. 30, 1894—A. 8. 8., XXVIT, p. 257 sqq. 

40 Can. 1147, 1. 

41 Some Aspects of the Dogma of Extreme Unction, pp. 58-9. Quinn does 
not subscribe to this theory, but simply gives it as a possible 
one. 


304 Extreme Unction 


the presbyterate were the same grade of Orders in the times of 
St. Paul, as Theodulf of Orleans‘ asserts, it 1s beyond perad- 
venture of doubt that later they were very distinct degrees of 
that sacrament. Those who have not the plenitude of Orders in 
these latter days may or may not have the power to bless the 
oil, depending, of course, on the proximity with which the order 
that they hold approaches the fulness of power. Now the priests 
of the West cannot bless the oil, whereas the priests of the Hast 
ean, Accordingly, the power which the Oriental presbyterate 
possesses approaches closer to the plenitude of the episcopacy 
than the power of the presbyterate of the Occident. Since the. 
former bless the oil by virtue of Orders and not of jurisdiction, 
it follows that the priesthood of the Greeks is of a higher degree 
than that of the Latins. 

Such an explanation is entirely unsatisfactory. It is a very 
difficult thing to prove that the priesthood of the Orient is and 
always has been of a higher grade than in the Latin rite. But 
granting such a thing for the moment, this theory offers no solu- 
tion for the case where a Western priest is empowered to bless 
the oil. In him an authorization of the Holy See would pro- 
duce a power of Orders, which prior to authorization, he did not 
jossess. Yet how can this act of the Holy See be construed in 
any other light than a delegation of jurisdiction? And again, 
how can the power of Orders be given by reseript, which might 
limit the duration of the power or restrict it to a certain num- 
ber of cases. 

Another solution 4? can be outlined in this fashion. Priest- 
hood of itself confers the power required to bless the oil of the 
sick. In every case wherein a priest is the minister, whether 
in the Oecident by indult or in the Orient without it, he blesses 
in virtue of his priestly orders. But in regard to the West the 
Church has enacted legislation which forbids priests to exercise 
this power under pain of invalidity. To bless the oil in the West 
then, the authorization of the Holy See must be viewed 
as a dispensation from this invalidating law rather than a con- 
cession of new power. Jurisdiction is required neither in the 





42 Capitulare—M. P. L., 105, 220C. 
43 Advanced by Cajetan, (in III part., q. 72, a. 2) and Perin (De Eatr. 
Unct., art. 1, quaer. 4 


The Blessing of the Ou 305 


East nor in the West; there is solely a question of the valid use 
of the power of Orders. 

This contention is also highly improbable. It would seem to 
presuppose that the Church has changed the matter of the sacra- 
ment. Time after time she has asserted that the matter of Ex- 
treme Unction is oil consecrated by an episcopal benediction. It 
would be necessary then to fall back on the theory which holds 
that the Church has the prerogative of introducing changes in 
the elements of the various sacraments by allowing in regard to 
Extreme Unction oil blessed with a priestly benediction to suffice 
for oil consecrated by a bishop. Although sacramental theology 
can show fairly well that the Church has probably changed the 
matter and form of some sacraments, yet the extension of this 
explanation to Extreme Unction should only be admitted upon 
the production of incontestable evidence to that effect. This is 
not the case here. Moreover, this view would imply that the ex- 
ercise of priestly orders has been restricted in the Latin Church. 
The Council of Trent insinuates the very opposite when it says: 
“Tntellexit Ecclesia materiam esse oleum ab episcopo benedic- 
tum.’’ 44 Neither did Benedict XIV look on it in this fashion. 
On the contrary he asserted very positively that either tacit or 
explicit delegation from the Pope was absolutely necessary to 
qualify Eastern priests for the valid performance of this bless- 
ing. ‘‘Neutiquam autem,’’ wrote he 45 ‘tid tolerandum fuisset, 
si oleum, simplicis Sacerdotis benedictione sacratum, ne per po- 
testatem quidem a Romano Pontifice sive expressa sive tacite 
eidem sacerdoti factam, esset materia idonea ad conficiendum 
Sacramentum Extremae Unctionis.’’ 

A real power is conceded therefore, and not a permission to 
exercise a power already possessed. This is the way the Greeks 
themselves look at the matter, as is evidenced by the decrees of 
two of their councils, viz., Zamos and Mt. Libanus. The former, 
held in 1720, legislated thus: 

e ‘¢Extremae Unctionis materia est oleum, cujus benedicendi 


potestatem multis abhine saeculis in orientali ecclesia sacerdotibus 
concessam praesens Synodus nequaquam adimendam existimavit.’’46 





44 Sess. XIV, De Extr. Unct., cap. Uy 
45 De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, ¢. 1, 2. 4. 
46 Tit, ILI, paragr. 6—Coll. Lac., t. Tis piecd, 


306 Extreme Unction 


The latter council enacted the following law: 


‘<Olei benedicendi potestas primario et principaliter penes epi- 
scopum residet et ab hoc in ecclesia occidentali una cum aliis SS. 
oleis benedicitur quotannis fer. V, in Coena Domini; per delegationem 
vero oleum infirmorum presbyteri simplices consecrant in ecclesia 
orientali . . . Sacerdotibus quidem illud oleum benedicendi pote- 
statem confirmamus.’’47 


Lehmkuhl, who made a special study of the Sacrament of 
Confirmation, seems to teach that the sacramental effect in Con- 
firmation when conferred by a priest is immediately due to the 
delegated authority.48 Transferring the case to Extreme Unce- 
tion, the contention would be that the effect produced in the oil 
when blessed by a priest must be ascribed principally and imme- 
diately to the delegated authority. In Penance Lehmkuhl thinks 
that jurisdiction is much more than a condition sine qua non 
for the exercise of the power of order; it is there at least a co- 
ordinate, if not a superior power.*® In Confirmation, however, 
he believes that the power of priestly orders gives an initial 
dignity which is completed by the delegation.®5° What the min- 
ister receives by this delegation is not the power of jurisdiction, 
‘‘sed est dignitas, quae ad eandem speciem refertur ac potestas 
ordinis.°+ Yet Lehmkuhl says that it is not right to term this 
power or dignity as a power of orders ‘‘quia non intrinsecus 
per ordinationem, sed extrinsecus per delegationem confertur.’’°? 
The effect resulting from this combination is due more imme- 
diately to this completing part of the dignity rather than to 
the initial dignity which the priest had through his priesthood. 
Thus, too, with the blessing of the oil. According to this theory, — 
the blessing would result rather from the delegation received 
than from the priesthood already possessed. 





47 Anno 1736—p. II, cap. 8, n. 2, apud Coll. Lac., t. IT, p. 150. 

48 Th. M., II, 135-6. 

49 Op. cit., II, 481: ‘‘Jurisdictio autem sensu omnino proprio vera potes- 
tas est, imo sensu magis proprio quam ipsa ordinis potestas.’’ 

50 Th. M., Il, 135: ‘‘Potestas ordinis (quae in sola dignitate consistit), 
completur in sacerdote, non vero potestas ordinis cum potestate 
jurisdictionis conjungitur ac si in hac conjunctione evaderet com- 
pleta potestas confirmandi.’’ 

51 Th. M., II, 136. 

52 Th. M., II, 136, 


The Blessing of the Oil 307 


This view is attacked by Dr. McDonald in the Irish Eccles- 
iastical Quarterly.>3 In the first place, says he, the oldest and 
best tradition holds that the presbyteratus is much more than a 
basis of dignity; it is a true physical power. Secondly, the tra- 
dition is deeply rooted that the sacramental effect is due rather 
to the power of Orders than to the superadded delegation or dig- 
nity. Furthermore, this dignity is more akin to the power of 
jurisdiction than to the power of orders, for the very reason 
that Lehmkuhl uses to support his own argument to the con- 
trary: ‘‘quia non intrinsecus per ordinationem, sed extrinsecus 
per delegationem confertur.’’ And if this is so, how can the 
effect of this dignity, which is akin to the power of jurisdiction, 
accomplish an identical effect to that of an episcopal character? 


Quite a different theory is advanced by Father Kern.** All 
the Pontiffs, he claims, without exception have regarded an epis- 
copal blessing of the oil necessary for the validity of the sacra- 
ment. But who may give an episcopal blessing? A bishop, 
surely, for he ‘‘per suum ordinem’”’ possess such power. But 
cannot the bishop delegate his power of blessing the oil to a 
competent subject (subjectum capaax) who is not of the episco- 
pate; and thus cause the blessing of such a one to become in 
virtue of the delegated authority also truly episcopal. In the 
opinion of Father Kern, yes—a bishop can make such a delega- 
tion of power to one of his priests, for a priest, and he alone, is 
in virtue of his sacerdotal order a ‘‘subjectum capax’’ of re- 
ceiving this grant of power. In other words there is resident 
in the presbyteratus an obediential potentiality of conferring 
this episcopal blessing; which potentiality, be it remembered, 
ean be evoked into act only thru the delegation made to the 
priest by the bishop. In this way the blessing of a priest be- 
comes truly episcopal, not vi swi ordinis, but per potestatem dele- 
gatam. Per se bishops have the right to delegate priests to 
bless this oil. The decree of Mt. Libanus,”’ just quoted, evi- 
dences this. Moreover this decree was confirmed by the Holy 
See a few years after it had been enacted, giving it thereby 


53 Vol. II, (1907), p. 337-8. 
54 Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 127-8. 
55 P, II, cap. 8, n. 2—Coll. Lac., t. II, p.. 150. 


308 Extreme Unction 


added authority.5° Consequently, neither by divine nor by eccles- 
iastical law is the faculty of delegation reserved by the Holy 
See in regard to the Eastern rites. In the Latin Church, how- 
ever, the Supreme Pontiff reserves to himself by explicit legis- 
lation——both in this canon and in canon 210—the privilege of 
conferring this delegation. 


There are certain objections which prevent an unreserved 
adoption of this view. Here the question might be asked: Is 
this delegation a part of the power of order or of the power of 
jurisdiction? If it is not a part of the power of order, why can- 
not it be withdrawn even from a bishop? Yet all claim that 
such cannot be done; that even heretical bishops can bless the 
oil validly. And if it is a part of the power of order, how can 
it be said to be delegated? The difficulty arises from the fact 
that priests may be delegated to bless the oil, while bishops can- 
not be deprived of that power because of their episcopal char- 
acter. It is curious indeed if delegation—jurisdiction—can sup- 
ply for the lack of episcopal character in a minister, especially 
to such an extent that in hac re the minister can be said to be 
acting virtualiter as a bishop. ‘‘It would almost be enough, ”’ 
writes Dr. MeDonald,®” ‘‘to decide one to adopt the Scotists’ 
view, that the power of Order itself is nothing more than a dele- 
gation, did we not know that both powers seem to act very 
differently in the administration of Penance.’’ 


Kern’s theory has something in its favor from Canon 210. 
There the possibility of delegating a power of orders is recog- 
nized, even though the Holy See reserves this right to itself. 
This canon differs in this from the law of the Decretals,°® which 
apparently allowed no outlet or exception. Other theories try 
to explain the matter by taking for granted that there can be 
no delegation of higher power of orders and consequently they 
are compelled to resort to very peculiar expedients. From the 
Code itself we know now that at least a delegation, not only of 





56 Benedict XIII, const. ‘‘Apostolatus Officium,’’ July 19, 1724—Coll. 
Paes tt. 11, peed. 

57 Trish Theological Quarterly, vol. IIT, (1907), p. 338. 

58 ¢. 9, X, de consecrat. eccl., III, 40: ‘‘Licet episcopus committere valeat 
quae jurisdictionis existunt, quae ordinis tamen episcopalis sunt, non 
potest mferioris gradus clericis demandare,’’ . 


The Blessing of the Oil 309 


jurisdiction, but also of orders 1s possible and in some cases per- 
missible.®? 


Still another theory is sponsored by Dr. Quin Se Ald 
priests, according to this explanation, have sufficient power of 
orders to bless the oil in the same fashion as they have the re- 
quisite power of Orders to administer Penance. In Penance they 
need jurisdiction to act validly ; to bless the Olewm Infirmorum 
jurisdiction, or something akin to it, is likewise required. Bish- 
ops and priests, when blessing the oil, use the selfsame power 
of Orders; but the former differ from the latter in so far as 
they have the requisite power of jurisdiction permanently, while 
the priests have it only when and as long as it is granted to 
them. 


This theory is not without its flaws. It must be remembered 
that heretical bishops consecrate the oil validly. Yet if the 
power 1s jurisdictional, why cannot the bishops be dispossessed of 
it just as freely as priests? We are forced to seek with Dr. 
Quinn a refuge in the contention that ‘‘episcopal orders carry 
with them at least some jurisdiction—of which bishops, as of di- 
vine institution cannot be deprived.’’*' It would be very hard to 
prove the incompetency of the Holy See to deprive a bishop of 
this power, if it is really a power of jurisdiction. However, Dr. 
Quinn seems to think that the use of the term ‘‘facultatem’’ in 
this canon seems to favor the notion of jurisdiction. 


It must be noted, too, that this theory demands jurisdiction 
for priests from the Holy See per se, and not from bishops, 
as Father Kern would have it. This would be in keeping with 
the statement of Benedict XIV that tacit or explicit delegation 
of the Pope was required by the Eastern priests for this bless- 


———— 


59 Cf. Cocchi, Comm. in Cod. Hb, Lipo lL sal 135; Blat, Comm. Text., 
lib. Il, n. 159; Chelodi, Jus de Personis, n. 127; Wernz-Vidal, 
De Personis, II, 383, and others on this point. They declare that 
the Holy See can delegate the power of orders only in regard to 
functions attached to a specific gerade of Order jure ecclesiastico. 
Consequently there could be no alternative than to accept the con- 
clusion that the blessing of the oil of the sick is attached to the 
episcopate by ecclesiastical law. At any rate this would be no worse 
than the labored hypotheses to which the proponents of other theories 
are driven. 

60 Some Aspects of The Dogma of Extreme Unction, pp. 59-63. 

61 Op. cit., p. 68. 





310 Extreme Unction 


ing.®? In the light of this the decree (already quoted) of the 
Council of Mt. Libanus, would have to be taken—seemingly with 
much violence to the ordinary meaning of the words—not as an 
actual delegation of this power on the part of the legislators but 
simply as an admission by them of its presence because of papal 
delegation. It could be retorted, too, that even if Benedict XIV 
asserted that priests of the East need express or tacit papal dele- 
gation, it would not follow that bishops per se could not delegate 
such a power. At most it could be held that such a power had 
been taken away from the Eastern bishops in the same fashion 
as from the Western episcopacy, and reserved throughout the 
entire church to the Holy See. However, as Benedict XIV was 
writing at the time in a capacity far from that of the head of 
Christendom, there is no obligation—although, indeed, it may 
be safely done—of accepting his reading of history as absolutely 
true. 

From amidst this maze of theological tangles, the juridical 
facts stand out, unobscured and undisputed. No matter how 
it is to be explained, it is none the less plain that a Latin 
priest can bless the Oil of the sick only with an Apostolic 
faculty. This ceremony is a consecration, and these are re- 
served to Bishops or to priests possessing a papal permission.®* 
Cardinals who are not bishops, though permitted to make many 
consecrations, are not allowed to consecrate the Olewm Infirmo- 
rum. Specific exemption of this is made in Canon 239, § 1, 20°. 
On the other hand, benediction by any bishop suffices, whether 
he be titular or residential.“* Even an heretical bishop would 
bless validly if he employed the correct form with the right 
intention, for, as has been noted before, it is a prerogative of 
which those having an episcopal character cannot be despoiled. 


Ad hoc benedictum. 


After a review of the qualities required in the blessing 
ex parte ministri, we are led to a consideration of the require- 
ments of the blessing itself. Are there any further determina- 


62 De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, c. 1, n. 4; cf. supra, p. 

63 Canon 1147, 1. 

64 Blat, Comm. Text., lib. ILI, p. I, n. 13; Paschang, The Sacramentals, 
pp. 52 and 59. 


The Blessing of the Oil 311 


tions of the blessing other than that it must be episcopal—or 
does any blessing whatsoever performed by a bishop suffice ? 

It is quite evident that Christ prescribed no exact formula 
of blessing. The huge differences in the prayers used from the 
most ancient times establishes this beyond doubt. The Collec- 
tion of Serapio,® the sacramentary of Gelasius,®°® the Testa- 
mentum D. N. J. C.,°7 the present formula in the Greek Eucho- 
logion ®8 and the formula which was used in the Coptic rite,®? 
pive a fair conception of the divergence of prayer. All these 
were surely valid forms, for the rites which employed them 
were approved by the Holy See. It is likewise true that any 
blessing found in the various rituals today which have been 
approved by the Holy See is valid. 

It should be noted that all the blessings given above have 
one common note. Sanctification of the oil is asked of Divine 
Goodness, so that it may become salutary and profitable to the 
sick in soul and in body. One might indeed be tempted to con- 
elude that Christ commanded this note as essential to the 
blessing of this particular oil. In regard to validity, the pres- 
ence of this one note would then seem to be all that is required. 
Ordinarily it would follow that bishops would be held to no 
particular form in regard to validity, but simply to the insertion 
of the essential element common to all the extant forms of bless- 
ing. Undoubtedly this is so in the Eastern rites today, and 
before the Code was also true in the West.’? Suarez noted very 
well, however: 


‘¢ortasse tamen fieri potest ab Ecclesia, ut talis benedictio irrita 
sit, nec apud Deum habeat rationem consecrationis, sed execrationis 





65 Wobbermin, ‘‘ Texte wnd Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchrist- 
lichen Literatur, herausg. v. Gebhardt u. Harnack, t. 17, fase. 3, 3 b. 

66 M. P. L., 74, 1100. 

67 Rahmani, p. 49. 

68 N. B. The prayer of blessing has been the same both in ancient and 
recent times, and both in the schismatical and the Uniat Churches. 
Its Latin translation is given by Martene, De Antiq. Eccl. Rit., lib. 
I, c. vii, art. 4, Ordo XXX; ‘‘Domine, qui in misericordia et misera- 
tionibus tuis animarum corporumque contritiones curas: ipse, Do- 
mine, oleum hoc sanctifica; ut in medelam omnis passionis carnalis 
et spiritualis inquinamenti et omnis denique mali depulsionem ex 
illo unctis fiat: ut in eo glorificetur sanctissimum nomen tuum, 
Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti nunc et semper et in saecula 
saeculorum, Amen.’’ 

69 Denziger, Ritus Orientaliwm, t. II, p..487. 

70 Cf, Suarez, 40, s, I, n, 9; Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 130-1, 


312 Extreme Unction 


potius; et hoc modo fieri etiam poterit benedictio ab Ecclesia instituta 
necessaria sit, quia ex ea pendet, ut Christi institutio impleatur.’’7 


‘This has actually come to pass in regard to Latin bishops. 
Canon 1148, 2, contains a new enactment in regard to consecra- 
tions and blessings: ‘‘Consecrationes et benedictiones sive con- 
titutivae sive invocativae invalidae sunt, si adhibita non fuerit 
formula ab Ecclesia praescripta.’’ Hence in the Occident today 
the only valid formula of benediction is that found in the 
Pontificale.” 


In regard to the blessing performed by priests, it need only 
be said that both in the East and the West, both before and 
after the Code, it has been required that they use the formula 
prescribed by ritual. They act in virtue of delegated authority 
only, and such an authorization is surely made under the con- 
dition that they observe the rite of consecration adamussim.” 
In the West there is, of course, the added reason for invalidity 
arising from the prescriptions of the Canon. 


Before an investigation of what is necessary for the licitness 
of blessing the oil, the value of the words ‘‘ad hoc’’ in this 
canon must be considered. What is their force in regard to the 
validity or liceity of the blessing? In other words can the Sace- 
rament of Extreme Unction be confected validly by the em- 
ployment of other oils blessed by a Bishop, viz., the Olewm Cate- 
chumenorum and the Sacred Chrism or is the Oil of the Sick 
strictly essential for this purpose? 


This question differs from the one just treated. There the 
point revolved about whether the oil was blessed at all; here it 
is a question of the applicability of oil already blessed, accord- 
ing to the formula given for the benediction of chrism or oil of 
the Catechumens. Granted the validity of its blessing, can 
the application of such oil or chrism be extended beyond the 
eases for which the blessing intends it? Can oil blessed for use 
in Baptism or Confirmation be validly applied in Extreme Une- 
tion ? 


7 Lac. 

72 ‘* De Officio in Feria V Coenae Domin.’’ 

73 Cf. Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 181; The Cath. Encyc., art. ‘‘ Extreme 
Unction.’’ 


The Blessing of the Oul 313 


Grave and weighty theological minds can be aligned on 
either side of the question, thus enhancing both opinions with 
probability. Those who allow the validity do so on the conten- 
tion that such oil is truly ‘‘oleum ab episcopo benedictum,”’ 
which the Council of Trent declared is the matter of this Sac- 
rament. If the Sacred Synod wished to determine the matter to 
an oil specially blessed for the sick, it would have so specified, 
by saying, e. g., that the ‘‘materia’’ was ‘‘oleum Infirmorum ab 
episcopo benedictum.’’** It is true that the blessings of chrism 
and the oil of the Catechumens do not contain the common ele- 
ment of impetration begging Divine merey and goodness to bless 
this oil for the easements of the soul and body of the sick. But 
the presence of such an element in all the formulae does not 
conclusively prove that Christ commanded this as essential to a 
valid blessing for unction. The very nature of the business of 
blessing the oil of the sick could bring it about that all such 
blessings have this common element. It is surely most appro- 
priate to the formula—and as a consequence its insertion can 
be ascribed to the fine perception of the ‘‘eternal fitness of 
things’’ on the part of those who composed the various ritualis- 
tic blessings. Consequently, Suarez writes: ‘‘ Existimo, seclusa 
tamen Ecclesiae prohibitione, nullum peccatum esse uti chris- 
mate proprio ad hoe sacramentum perficiendum, et praesertim 
si aliud oleum simplex et sanctificatum deesset.’’ 7° 


Some of the older authors declared the absolute invalidity 
of chrism, while seemingly admitting the validity of the Oleum 
Catechumenorum. Chrism, they claimed, lost the ‘‘esse olei’’ 
when balsam was added to the oil.77 Suarez, however, though 
denying the possibility of the reverse, thinks that the chrism is 
equally as valid as the Oil of the Catchumens, because it was 
used, he alleges, in former days for unction.’* Laymann ” 
teaches that in practice it is not at all allowable to use chrism 
even if the oil of the sick is not at hand and there is danger in 


74 Cf. The Caswist, vol. II, p. 88. 

75 Cf. Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 131. 

PaO 28. cl, sis L 1. 

77 Soto, Comm. in IV Sent., dist. 23, q. 1, a. 3; Paludanus, Comm. in IV 
Sent.adist,<23, .qz0l, "a. 1. 

Clee ye. en 10, 

Toes a, MM. tract. VIII, °*De Hat. Unct.,-* ¢.. 2,00} 


314 Extreme Unction 


postponing the unction. If a priest, however, has anointed 
thru mistake with chrism, ‘‘probabiliter dici posse videtur nihil 
esse repetendum, sed rem Domino commendandum; tum quia 
plerumque non posset fieri iterata unetio sine secandalo, tum 
quia valde probabile est sacramentum Extremae Unctionis valide 
conferri in materia sacri chrismatis; seu quia olim consuetum 
erat talem materiam adhibere, ut Suarez existimat, seu quia mix- 
tio balsami tam exigua esse solet, ut oleum nec physice nee 
omnino moraliter suam naturam exuisse censeatur quod vero 
hae vel illa benedictione oleum consecratum sit, non videtur 
pertinere ad sacramenti substantiam.”’ 80 With this latter state- 
ment Diana agrees.8! He allows nevertheless an unction with 
chrism in case of necessity if the oil of the sick is not handy 
‘nam utilitas, quam hoe sacramentum affert infirmo praefer- 
enda est.’’? The latter reason is given by Tamburini.** On the 
other hand LaCroix ®8 is displeased at the prohibition of con- 
ditional repetition made by Laymann. ‘‘Dicendum est’’ he 
writes, ‘‘. . . contra Laymann, sacramentum repeti sub condi- 
tione, quia dubium est, an cum chrismate fuerit validum.’’ 


Diametrically opposed to the opinion maintaining the valid 
confection of the sacrament with the oil of the Catechumens and 
chrism is the teaching of Babenstuber,** and Barbosa.®? They 
maintain the absolute invalidity of the use of any oil but that of 
the sick. Their contention is based on the ground that each 
oil by its own peculiar blessing is made apt for use only for 
the purpose specified in such blessing. Hence they cannot be 
validly interchanged even in the greatest emergency. 


St. Alphonsus 8° admitted the probability of both opinions, 
but taught that the former could not be put into practice except 
when the oil of the sick was not to be had. This is in accord- 
ance with the condemnation by Innocent XI of the proposition : 
‘‘Non est illicitum in sacramentis conferendis sequi opmionem 
probabilem de valore sacramenti, relicta tutiore, nisi id vetat lex, 


80 Laymann, l.c. 

81 Op. Coord., tom II, tract. IV, De Ext. Unct., res. 2 et 7. 
82 Moral. Explic., lib. VI, De Ext. Unct., c. 1, paragr. 1, n. 5. 
83 Th. M., lib. VI, p. II, n. 2090. 

84 Ethica Supernat., Tract. 8, p. 2, disp. 7, a. 2, n. 3. 

85 De Off. et Pot. Par., p. II, c. 22, n. 24. 

86 Th. M., VI, 709. 


The Blessing of the Oil 315 


conventio aut periculum gravis damni incurrendi. Hine sen- 
tentia probabili tantum utendum non est in collatione baptismi, 
ordinis sacerdotalis aut episcopalis.’’®* Sinee that time prac- 
tically all theologians acknowledge the permissibility of anoint- 
ing with the oil of the Catechumens in case of necessity.22 A 
recent note in the controversy is heard from Fr. Umberg.*® 
Arguing from Canon 1148, 2, he states that not only is a com- 
petent minister required, but also the corresponding formula for 
the blessing. ‘‘Quodsi chrisma adhibetur,’’ he writes, ‘‘idem 
est ac si adhibetur oleum sine legitima forma benedictum.’’ 
Most authors, on the other hand, think that this controversy is 
untouched by the Code.®°® Blat *! joins with Umberg in stat- 
ing that no substitution can now be made. Woywod does not 
agree with him: ‘‘The fact that others think that this ques- 
tion is not decided by canon 1148, 2 is proven by their recogni- 
tion of the probability of this opinion even in editions of their 
books published since the promulgation of the Code. The Code 
does not state ... whether any of the holy oils blessed by a 
bishop may be valid ‘materia’ in Extreme Unction. The ques- 
tion remains open and, therefore, if the priest has only the oleum 
catechumenorum or the sanctum chrisma at hand, he may anoint 
the sick conditionally in an urgent case, but if there is time, he 
must repeat, likewise conditionally, with the oleum infirmo- 
mum, ° 





87 §. C. S. Off., 2 Mar. 1679—Denziger, Hnchiridion, n. 1151. 

88 Cf. Dicastillo, De Sac., tom. I, tr. 7, disp. I, lib. 8, n. 38; Scavini, 
THOM, to 11; ns/432,.a;3 Kenrick, Th. M.,\ Il, .** DevHat. Unets*’ 
cap. unic., n. 3: Dens. Tract. de Eat. Unct., N. rag (A eed Ue Konings, 
TM en, ” 1502, quaer. 4; Pesch, Prael. Dog.. vol. VII, n. 525; Geni- 
cot- Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., Il, 416—Casus Conse., p. 568, cas. 
876; AErtnys, They. Lion, 357; Tanquerey, Th. De Til, vit, 765; 
Gury-Ferreres, Comp. Th. M., II, nn. 833 et 254—Casus Consc., 
II, n. 785; Sebastiani, Summ. Th. M., n. 508; Gury, Th. M., II, n. 
877: Noldin, De Sac., 432; Lehmkuhl, ie M., i Pg by. Telch, Epi- 
tome Th. M., Appendix TI tent Proo.,?’ n. 64, p. 415: Sabetti- 
Barrett Th. M., Dp oUL- De Augustinis, De Re Sacramentaria, LE 
thesis IT, “De Ext. Unct.,?? scholion I, pp. 376-7; O’Kane, The 
Rubrics, n. 853; The Casuist, II, p. 85; Rohling, Medulla, p. 378; 
Vermeersch- -Creusen, Hpit., II, 230; Ballerini-Palmieri, Op. Th. M., 
WOR tra aeete LVL, Tek. 

89 Neo-Confessarws, by Reuter-Lehmkuhl-Umberg, n. 226. 

90 Cf. Noldin, De Sac., 432; Woywod, A Practical Commentary, I, n. 868. 

91 Comm, Tezt., lib. III, p. I, n. 290. 

92 Lic, 


316 Extreme Unction 


Cases of necessity may arise easily enough. By mistake, 
a priest could bring to the sick room the oil of Baptism or 
the Chrism of Confirmation. The person is dying very rapidly 
and will very likely have passed away, by the time the priest 
could retrace his steps to the rectory and back again to the sick 
house. If the sick call were in the rural districts, a very con- 
siderable amount of time would be required for this. 


Another emergency would occur when a priest, called to 
baptize a child, would suddenly find the mother dying also. If 
there is danger in delay, the Oil of the Catechumens or the 
Christan may be employed for the unction. It need hardly be 
said that such an unction is to be made under the condition, at 
least mentally expressed, ‘‘Si materia est valida.’ 


If the oil of the sick is obtained while the person is still 
alive, a second unction is to be made. This, too, should be 
conditional, ‘‘Si nondum es hoe Sacramento refectus.’°*” “Bt 
Alphonsus ®° does not mention the conditional nature of the 
second administration, although most probably he implied it, 
for he refers to LaCroix °° who directs a conditional administra- 
tion. St. Charles similarly omitted mention of the fact that 
the second administration ought to be sub conditione.?* 

Practically all of the later theologians have expheitly or- 
dered a condition to be inserted in this repetition ‘‘ad ecaute- 
lam.’’88 Lehmkuhl,®® however, thinks that if a man has been 
absolved and received Communion, and the priest notices during 
the unctions that he is using the wrong oil, it is more advisable 
to risk a return to the rectory for the correct oils, even though 
there is danger that the man may die in the meantime. The 
completion of the other unctions is simply piling doubt upon 


93 Cf, Scavini, Th. M., ITI, n. 432. 

94 Seavini, Le. N. B. As noted before, the condition should not be ‘‘Si 
capax es,’’ for it is quite probable that a person may validly be 
anointed twice or more in the same danger of death—yet such a 
repetition is altogether illicit. 

95 Th. M., VI, 709. 

96 Th. M., |. 6, p. 2, n. 2090. 

97 Acta Eccl. Mediol., Pars IV, ‘‘Instruct. De Eat. Unct.,’’ t. I, p. 603. 

98 Cf, Seavini, le. Kenrick, l.c., Dens, Lc., Pesch., l.c., Konings, Lc., 
Genicot-Salsmans, lc., Tanquerey, l.c., AErtnys, l.c., Gury-Ferreres, 
L.c., Sebastiani, l.c., Gury, l.c., Noldin, l.c., Telch, Le., Sabetti-Barrett, 
l.c., DeAugustinis, l.c., O’Kane, l.c., The Casuist, Le, 

299 Casus Conse., II, 668. 








The Blessing of the Ow 317 


doubt, whereas, since a single unction suffices for validity, time 
may be saved by interrupting the unctions and hurrying for 
the proper oils. Elbel-Bierbaum ‘°° teaches that if the pastor 
learns after a time that he has been using the Olewm Catechu- 
menorum by mistake, he need not go back and repeat the unc- 
tions with the Oleum Infirmorum when the subject has received 
the other sacraments. However, if Extreme Unction was the only 
sacrament which the subject could have with certainty received, 
e. g., if he were unconscious, then im every case of this kind 
the sacrament is to be repeated. 

The reasons he alleges for the first case are three: 1) The 
unetion with chrism (or oil of the Catechumens) was probably 
valid; 2) the sacrament is not absolutely necessary ; 3) the 
impossibility of reanointing without exciting the wonderment 
of the people—a phenomenon which never lacks an element of 
scandal. The third reason would surely not be hard to verify if 
many sick were at that time in the parish. It would soon be 
breezed far and wide that the pastor had made some great 
mistake, because all the sick in his parish were reanointed. On 
the other hand, a judicious handling of the situation would 
prevent such a condition of affairs. Those nearest death could 
be anointed first—and if necessary, by a single unction, so that 
the bystanders could not notice it. One by one the others could 
be attended so that gradually, through diplomacy, all the sick 
of the parish would receive what was in justice due to them 
from the pastor. 

It may be remarked that if a choice can be made between 
the oil of the Catechumens and the chrism, it is safer, and, 
therefore, wiser, to choose the former. Never was it questioned 
that the oil of the Catechumens had the ‘‘esse olet,’’ but, as has 
been seen, some theologians contested the availibility of chrism 
as valid matter for this sacrament. Schmalzgrueber’®’ implies 
the preferability of the Olewm Catechumenorum, when he states 





100 Th. M., III, P. VIII, Conf. IX, n. 203-4. 

101 ‘‘Multo minus iterandum aliquid erit in casu quo sacerdos per errorem 
oleo catechumenorum ungeret infirmum; licet enim diversa sit hujus 
et olei infirmorum benedictio, in substantia non differunt.’’? Jus 
Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib. I, tit. xvi, n. 5. 


318 Extreme Unction 


that the obligation of repeating the sacrament thus confected 
is much less than when it has been administered with chrism. 


The liceity of the blessing of this oil depends upon the 
observance of further requirements. The blessing may not be 
performed at any time of the year at the pleasure of the bishop. 
By canon 734, 1, this consecration is restricted to Holy Thursday 
of each year. The rite to be observed is found in the Pontificale 
under the title ‘‘De officio in Feria V Coenae Domini.’’ “Hae 
die’’ reads the first rubric of that title, ‘‘singulis annis bene- 
dicitur Oleum Catechumenorum et Infirmorum, et conficitur 
Chrisma.’’ The blessing is done at the Mass on that day, im- 
mediately before the words of the canon, ‘‘ Per quem haec omnia, 
Domine, semper bona creas.’’ When he arrives at this prayer, 
the bishop purifies his hands and proceeds to the table pre- 
pared for him. At the command of the Archdeacon, a sub- 
deacon and two acolytes bring the oil from the sacristy and 
present it to the Archdeacon. The Archdeacon, in turn, pre- 
sents it to the bishop, who immediately exorcises it. Then the 
blessing is given straightway with the words:  ‘‘Emitte, 
quaesumus, Domine, Spiritum Sanctum tuum Paralictum de 
coelis in hane pinguedinem olivae, quam de viridi ligno pro- 
ducere dignatus es, ad refectionem mentis et corporis; ut tua 
sancta benedictione sit omni hoe unguento coelestis medicinae 
peruncto, tutamen mentis et corporis, ad evacuandos omnes 
dolores, omnes infirmitates, omnemque aegritudinem mentis et 
corporis, unde unxisti Sacerdotes, Reges, Prophetas et Martyres ; 
sit Chrisma tuum perfectum, Domine, nobis a te benedictum, 
permanens in visceribus nostris: In nomine Domini Jesu 
Christi.’’ The oil is brought back to the sacristy and the Mass 
proceeds. 


In the Roman Breviary under date of January 20th, it is 
stated that the customs of blessing the oil on Holy Thursday 
was due to a decree of Pope Fabian.1°? Catalano ! is inelined 
to believe that this decree, included by Gratian in the Corpus 


102 ‘*Tdem statuit ut quotannis feria quinta in Coena Domini, vetere com- 
busto, chrisma renovaretur.’’ 


103 Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 309. 


The Blessing of the Oil 319 


Juris,'°* is supposititious. The Council of Toledo, celebrated 
in the year 400, stated that it was licit for bishops to confect 
chrism at any time during the year.’°% Hence, Cavallieri 1° 
declares that the custom cannot be said with certainty to be 
older than the seventh century, when mention of it is made 
in the Gregorian Sacramentary. St. Isadore’°? mentions the 
performance of this ceremony on Maundy Thursday, while St. 
Thomas!’8 and Durandus!” vie with each other in asserting 
mystical reasons for the appropriateness of the day. The 
custom, even at that time, was co-extensive with the Latin Rite. 


After this blessing has thus taken place, it becomes in- 
cumbent on the pastors of the diocese to seek a supply of the 
freshly blessed oil and use it thruout the year. Oils blessed in 
previous years become illicit for use, except in ease of neces- 
sity.14° Consequently the newly blessed oil must be sought as 
soon as possible. 


Canon 735, makes it obligatory upon the pastor to seek it 
from his own Ordinary. Such legislation is extremely old, dat- 
ing back as far as the fourth Council of Carthage in 398.11! The 
Fifth and Sixth Provincial Councils of Beneventum, one thou- 
sand years later (1331 and 1374), hurled an excommunication 


104 c, 18, d. III, de cons. : ‘‘Litteris vestris inter cetera insertum inveni- 
mus, quosdam religionis vestrae episcopos a vestro nostroque ordine 
discrepare, et non per singulos annos in coena Domini crisma con- 
ficere. Errant vero qui talia excogitant, et mente vesana potius, 
quam recta sentientes haec facere audent. Sicut enim ipsius diei 
solemnitas per singulos annos est celebranda, ita ipsius sancti cris- 
matis confectio per singulos annos est agenda, et de anno in annum 
renovanda, et fidelibus tradendum, quia novum sacramentum est et 
per singulos annos, in jam dicta die innovandum, et vetus in sanctis 
ecclesiis cremandum. Ista a sanctis apostolis et successoribus eorum 
accepimus, vobisque tenenda mandamus. ’’ 

105 can. xx—C. 124, D. ITI, de cons.: ‘‘Omni tempore Episcopus licere 
chrisma conficere et per suas dioecesas destinare.’’ 

106 Opera Liturgica, tom. IV, cap. 26, ‘‘De Sacris Oletis,’’ decretum I in 
Ord. 168, page 199. 

107 De Ecclesiasticis Officiis, Lib. I, Cap. 29, ‘‘de Coena Dom.’’—M. P. L., 
83, 764. 

POE TIT Ps,'q. 72, a. 12 ad 3. 

109 Rationale Divin. Officiorum, lib. 6, cap. 74. 

110 Can. 734, 1. It is not required that the oil be recent but that the con- 
secration be recent. Cf. S. R. C., 22 Mar. 1862, ad IV, Coll. 1225; 
D. A., ad V, n. 3114. 


111 Canon 36—C. 123, D. IV, de cons. 


_ 


320 Extreme Unction 


latae sententiae against priests who sought the oils from a 
bishop other than their own.t” 

The pastor is to procure the oils from his own Ordinary 
whether the latter be a bishop or not. The Ordinary 1s bound 
to supply the sacred oils for the territory he governs.143 The 
obtaining of the oils from him is an acknowledgment of the 
Ordinary’s jurisdiction and is an indication of the organization 
of the diocese.414 If the see is vacant (and there is no Ordinary), 
Genicot teaches that the oils can be gotten from a neighboring 
bishop.**® 


Pastors may not be dilatory in their application for the 
newly blessed oils. Promptness was prescribed by the Council of 
Vasense (442) 16 and before it, by the Fourth Council of Carth- 
age!7 The reason for this preseription was due to the fact 
that the oil of the catechumens and the chrism were necessary 
for the services of Baster night, which were then similar to 
the Holy Saturday services of today. The Sixth Provineial 
Council of Benevento (1374) required the pastors to seek the 
three oils on the very day of consecration, Holy Thursday.t® 
Benedict XIV 1° urged the obligation on the pastors of pro- 
curing the Holy Oils of the Sick as diligently as that of pro- 
curing the other two oils. In 1826, the Congregation of Rites 





112 This decree is found in Tit. 3, cap. 3 of the Sixth Council, paragr. 
‘« Sed ante,’’? and from eap. 49 of the Fifth Council; apud Catalano, 
Rite Rona bapa. 

113 Blat. Comm. Text., Lib. III, p. 1, n. 14, Fanfani, De Jure Paroch., n. 
230. 

114 Cf. Augustine, 4 Commentary, IV, p. 30. 

115 Inst. Th. M. II, 416; Cf. answer of Pius VI to priests of France— 
footnote 86 of this chapter. 

116 Can. 3—‘‘Per singula territoria presbyteri vel Ministri ab Episcopis, 
non prout libitum fuit, a vicinioribus sed a suis propriis per annos 
singulos chrisma petant, appropinquante solemnitate Paschae.’’ 
Summa Conciliorum, II, 

117 Can. 36—C, 123, D. IV, de cons. See also C. 122, D. ITI, de cons. If 
a pastor neglects to get the oil and dares to administer the sacra- 
ments with old oil, he does such a thing validly but so illicitly that 
‘““nro temeritatis ausu ipse in se suae damnationis protulisse sen- 
tentiam manifestatur.’’ 

118 tit. 3, c. 3—‘‘Praecipientes ut singulis annis in die Jovis sancta Coenae 
Domini presbyteri parochiales .. . Chrisma uovum, et Oleum novum 
Catechumenorum ... et Oleum novum Infirmorum ... a nobis in 
nostra dioecesi, seu suffraganeis nostris in eorum Dioecesibus, vel 
Archiprebyteris nostris suscipiant, sicut est consuetum;’’ Cf. Cata- 
lano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 76. 

119 Institutiones, Ixxx, n. 3. 


The Blessing of the Ou 521 


condemned expressly the custom prevailing in some places of de- 
ferring the distribution of oils until after Low Sunday.’*° The 
annotator on this decision states that the ‘‘quamprimum’’ of the 
rubric !21 is to be interpreted in light of the obligation to use 
new oils on Holy Saturday.!** Hence, according to him, noth- 
ing but grave necessity would justify any delay. It must be 
remembered that this decree had to do with obtaining only 
the oils necessary for the blessing of the font. Yet the annotator 
urges the obligation of procuring the oil of the sick with the 
same stress as that of the other oils. 


The obligation of procuring the oils promptly is binding 
under grave sin, according to the more probable opinion.’*? The 
additional obligation of applying to one’s own Ordinary for 
the renovation of the oils is similarly grave.1*4 Consequently 
only proportionate inconvenience will excuse from the observ- 
ance of these obligations. Delay in procuring the oils can 
be condoned by reason of great distance, difficult roads, heavy 
storms, &¢.125 The latter obligation can be omitted in turbulent 
times, or when a strike would interrupt communication between 
a pastor and his own bishop.'*® Pastors regular, however, are 
not exempt from this obligation, but must apply to the diocesan 
bishop for their supply of oils.’*7 

Since there is an obligation on the pastor to approach his 
Ordinary for the holy oils, there is a corresponding obligation 
on the Ordinary to furnish sufficient oil for the needs of the 
priests in his territory. The Oil is to be kept in the Cathedral 
Church and to be dispensed therefrom by the Dignitaries.‘*° No 
fee should be charged for the oil, and the bishop may not allow 


120 16 Dec. 1826, in una Gandav., ad IV,—D. A., n. 2650. 

iivRit..kom., Tit. IL, c. 1, n..48. 

122 apud D. A., vol. IV, p. 284. 

123 Cf, Alphonsus, Th. M., VI, 708; Konings, Th. M., n. 1502, quaer, 1; 
Sabetti-Barrett, Th. M. p. 800; Noldin, De Sac. 433, Vermeersch- 
Creusen, Epit., II, 230; &c. 

124 Cf, Canon 735; Noldin, De Sac., 433; Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., 
II, 416. 

125 Cf. O’Kane, The Rubrics, n, 251. 

126 Cf. Augustine, 4 Commentary, IV, p. 30. 

127 Clement XIII, const. ‘‘Inter Multiplices, Dec. 11, 1758, paragr. 5-6— 
C. I. C. Fontes, n. 449. 

128 §. R. C., Aug. 19, 1619—D. A., n. 379. 


B22 Extreme Unction 


any gratuitous offerings to be accepted.??® The bishop must 
provide the oils for the exempt places of his dioceses (terris et 
locis immunibus), such as the monasteries of the orders of both 
sexes.13° Clement VIII in a Constitution dated March 24, 1599, 
ordered bishops to give the oil to regulars ‘‘prompte et libera- 
liter,’’? 131 In the month preceding the issuance of this con- 
stitution the Congregation for Bishops and Regulars had de- 
elared that ‘“‘regularibus sanctum oleum ab Episcopis denegart 
non potest.’”82, Three later decisions decide that ‘‘immo epi- 
scopi tenentur iisdem illud dare.’’'*? 


It is not necessary that the pastor should make petition for 
the oils in person. The Fourth Council of Carthage '%* and 
the Council of Vasense (442) 135 demanded application thru a 
deacon or subdeacon. The Council of Auxerre,?*® held in 578, 
allowed the Archdeacon or the Archsubdeacon to appear for 
the priest, if he were ill. The Sixth Provincial Council of 
Beneventum 137 prescribed that the pastors should receive the 
oils ‘‘per se ipsos aut clericos, saltem adultos.’’ This decree 
was corrected later in the Thirteenth Provincial Council, held 
at the same place, by demanding that ‘“quotannis mittatur 
gacerdos aliquis, aut saltem aliquis in sacris constitutus qui 
nova accipiat.’’? 188 St. Charles, likewise, restricted to men in 
sacred orders the bearing of the oil from the Cathedral to the 
pastor.189 The rubric of the Roman Ritual’*® now reads: 
‘‘Parochus, quantum fieri potest, curet, ne per laicos, sed per se, 
vel alium sacerdotem, vel saltem per alium Ecclesiae ministrum 
haee Olea deferantur.’’ The insertion of the clause ‘‘in qwan- 


129 S.C. EE. et RR., 6 Sept., 1604—apud Cavallieri, Opera Liturgica, vol. 
IV, cap. 26, decr. 9. | 

130 Cong. EE. et RR., 1 Jan. 1610—apud Cavallieri, ibid., decr. 6, page 
200. 

131 Const. ‘‘Exponi Nobis’’—Bull, Taur. Edit, vol. X, p. 484—n. 201. 

132 §. C. BE. et RR., Feb. 2, 1599—apud Cavallieri, ibid., decr. 7, page 200. 

133 §. C. EE., 20 Nov. 1601; 4 Jun. 1602; Nov. 10, 1659—apud Cavallieri, 
ibid, decr. 8, p. 200. 

134 Can, 36—C. 123, D. III, de cons. 

135 cap. 3—Summa Conciliorum, II, 146. 

136 can. 6—Harduin III, 444. 

137 held in 1374—+it. 3, cap. 3—Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 76. 

138 Tit. XI, n. 1—Catalano, l.c. 

139 II Prov. Cone. Mediolan., Tit. I, decr. IX—apud Acta Hecl. Mediolan., 
tom. I, p. 68. 

MOUTite Licap. La mooe. 


The Blessing of the Oul 323 


tum fiert potest’’ saves the prohibition from being absolutely 
iron-bound. Laies are not excluded entirely, and consequently 
may touch the vessels of oil for a sufficient reason. Hence, 
Catalano claims!*! that they may be employed when a pastor 
cannot conveniently approach the Cathedral during Holy Week. 
Services usually keep pastors extremely busy during the latter 
part of that week; and to deprive the people of the grand 
ritual of those days would wreak a real spiritual hardship upon 
pious souls.142 Another reason might well be the advanced age 
or the feebleness of the pastor, thereby making a trip to the 
Cathedral a great hardship. In short, any just and reasonable 
cause permits the pastor to engage a layman to go to the 
Cathedral for the oils on Holy Thursday.'** 


The question was settled specifically for the United States 
in 1901 in an answer given to the Bishop of Leavenworth.'** The 
Propaganda took care to insert, however, that the layman em- 
ployed should be trustworthy—with the consequence that the 
pastor should make use of much discretion »in selecting the per- 
son to whom he is to entrust this sacred mission. 


Baruffaldo 145 thinks that laymen are guilty of grievous sin 
who touch the vessel of oils without necessity. O’Kane!*® rightly 
holds this is too severe; and declares that the offense is serious 
only when committed with contempt. It must be remembered 
that this prohibition is binding only when the vessels actually 
contain the holy oil, for, since they are not consecrated, but 
simply blessed, they may be handled by anyone when empty. 
Some idea of the deep reverence due them when filled can be 
gained from the prescriptions of the ancient synods which com- 
manded them to be borne ‘“‘stcut reliquiae sanctorum deportart 
solent,’ 7347 


141 Rit. Rom. t. I, p. 76. 

142 ‘‘In necessitatis casu, si nempe sacerdoti non suppetat tempus eccle- 
siam adeundi, ut ipse oleum assumat, deficiente oleo ministro sacro, 
potest laicus minister illud deferre, occulte tamen et reverenter.’’ 
(Pourbaix-Coppin, S. Liturg. Comp., N. 687, ad 3). 

143 DeHerdt, Lit. Prax., III, 157; Cf. also the annotator of the Decreta 
Authentica, Vol. IV, annotation to decree 2650, p. 285. 

144 §, C. P. F., 1 May, 1901-—-apud Amer. Eccl. Review, vol. XXV, p. 87. 

145 Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., t. I, tit. X, n. 25. 

146 The Rubrics, n. 269. 

147 Cone. Vormatiense (anno 868), can. 60—apud Harduin V, 745; Cone. 
Autissiodorensis (anno 578), can. 6—Harduin III, 444, 


324 Extreme Unction 


The oils may not be trusted to the national mail nor to a 
reliable express company for transportation. A writer in the 
Ecclesiastical Review!*® was inclined to believe that this was 
lawful, asserting that the carrying services of our express com- 
panies and the efficiency of the mail transportation is as perfect 
here as in any country. A parcel sent thru either medium is 
guarded, especially if registered, as safely as if it were in the 
personal possession of any person, cleric or lay. Shortly after 
this was written, however, the Bishop of Leavenworth queried 
of the Holy See: ‘‘Licetne sacra Olea ab Episcopo consecrata 
per societatem mercatoriam ‘The Express’ ad_ sacerdotes 
transmittere?’’ The Propaganda answered to this: ‘‘Non 
licere.’’ 149 


Two years later a bishop of one of the vast dioceses of 
Brazil reported the difficulties of some of the pastors in reaching 
the episcopal city to get the oil, and begged that the urgency 
be relieved by the permission to use the national mail as the 
means of transmission of the holy oils to these distant parishes. 
Again the Holy See refused, and published with its refusal the 
decree given by the Propaganda to the Bishop of Leavenworth.’° 
The consequence of these decisions is the utter unlawfulness of 
employing either express or mail service in the distribution of 
the oils thruout the diocese. 


The old oils, or at least part of them, must be kept until 
the new oils arrive. This is evident, for otherwise, the dying 
could not be provided for in the meantime. 

As long as the necessity prevents the replenishing of the 
supply, the old oils may be lawfully used. This is clear from 


148 vol. XXII, pp. 311-2. 

149 This decision was forwarded to the editor of the Ecclesiastical Review 
by the Bishop of Leavenworth, and was published in that journal 
soon afterwards—vol. XXV, pp. 61-2. 

150 §. C. 8. Off., 14 Jan. 1903—A. 8. 8., XXXVI, 14. 

151 O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 857; Gavant, Manuale Episcoporum, V, E. U., 
n. 10. It is very advisable to have two ampullae for each oil, so 
that one may be kept while the other has been sent to the Cathedral 
for replenishing—cf. St. Charles Borromeo in the Fourth Provincial 
Council of Milan, Pars Secunda Constitutionuwm, cap. inscripto ‘‘Quae 
ad sacramentalia vel ad Sacramenta pertinent,’’ apud. Acta Keel. 
Mediolanensis, t. I, pars 1, p. 140. 


The Blessing of the Oul 325 


decisions of the Roman Congregations,?°* and from Canon 734, 1. 
Oceasionally in the past the Holy See has granted various 
localities the permission to use old oil, because of missionary 
conditions there existing? By the Constitution ‘‘ Trans 
Oceanum,’’ +5* for example, all Latin America and the Philip- 
pine Islands were allowed to use the old oils for four years, if, 
aiter due diligence, they could not obtain newly-blessed or 
more recently blessed oil. Now, however, no such indult is 
necessary, if the necessity is truly present.?°° 


After the arrival of the new oil, it becomes altogether 
unlawful to use the old oil. It is the common opinion of theo- 
logians that such a procedure is mortally sinful.?°® 


The old oil is to be burned, as the Pontifical prescribes.1°! 
If there is any oil in bottles or vases, it should be poured into the 
lamp which hangs before the Blessed Sacrament. What is con- 
tained in the cotton in the oil-stocks for ordinary use should be 
burned together with the cotton.°* Before the cotton is placed 
in the fire, however, it may be squeezed over the sanctuary 
lamp so that the loose oil will be deposited therein. After the 
cotton is burned, the ashes are to be thrown into the sacra- 
Beno’ 


The custom of burning the oil is extremely ancient. There 
is mention of it in the pseudo-Fabian letter.1® A similar pre- 
scription is found in the Pontifical of Emesa in Syria, edited 
in 1214, and in the Pontifical of Arles, which also dates back 





152 §. C. EE. et RR., March 20, 1590—apud Cavallieri, Opera Liturgtca, 
tom. IV, Cap. 26, De Sacris Oleis, n. VII, p. 199; 8. R. C., Jan. 19, 
1608—D. A., n. 244. 

153 Cf. §. C. P. F., 13 Aug. 1669 (C. P. pro Sin.)—Coll. 183; 18 Feb. 
1783 (C. G.) Sophiae—Coll. 561; 27 Sept. 1835 Gregory XVI 
granted Bishops and Vicars Apostolic in China and adjacent lands 
the faculty in perpetuum of using old oils—Coll. 840. 

154 Cf, Ferreres, Comp. Th. M., II, 255. 

155 Augustine, 4 Commentary, IV, p. 30. 

156 Barbosa, De Off. et Pot. Parochi, p. II, cap. 22, n. 25; Baruftaldo, Ad 
Rit. Rom. Comm., t. 1, tit. 27, n. 3; De Herdt, Lit. Pragw. III, 155; 
Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 416; cf. C. 122, D. III, de cons. 

157 Pars. III, ‘‘De Off. in Fer. V Coena Dom.,’’ in fine. 

158 Pontificale, loc. ctt. 

159 Cavallieri, Opera Liturgica, t. IV, cap. 26, De Sacris Oleis, n. VIIT; 
O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 254; De Herdt, Lit. Praw., III, 150. 

160 ec, 18, D. III, de cons. 


326 Extreme Unction 


to the thirteenth century.1®! In the Fourth Provincial Council 
of Milan,!®? this regulation was likewise decreed. In 1579, the 
Provincial Council of Salernitano!®? commanded this disposi- 
tion of the old oil. 

This practice was not universal, however. Other Pontificals 
instructed the old oil to be mixed with the new oil. Thus the 
Pontifical of Beauvais, edited about 800, plainly states: ‘‘Tune 
Chrisma novum misceatur cum veteri, si quid residuum sit: 
similiter et Oleum, et ita dividat presbyteris.’’ 1°* Similar rubrics 
are contained in the ancient Pontificals of Constantinople and 
Silvanectense.!® The Sixth Provincial Council of Benevento 
(1874)16* prescribed that the old oil should be poured into the 
Sacrarium by way of the baptismal font, and that the ampullae 
be diligently cleansed before refilling with newly-consecrated 
oil. In 1601 the Congregation of Rites!®" issued a decree com- 
manding that the old oil be disposed of by burning. Since 
that time until the present day, the practice of burning the 
old oils upon reception of the fresh supply has been observed 
thruout the Latin Church. 

A final question in regard to the oil arises when the supply 
begins to run low—and there is danger that it will be exhausted 
before more oil can be procured. The solution is found in 
Canon 734, 2, which permits the addition of unblessed olive oil 
to the diminished supply, but always in a smaller quantity than 
the amount of blessed oil. 

This is not the first legislation on the subject. As early 
as the thirteenth century Innocent III stated: ‘‘Non negamus 
quin oleum non consecratum consecrato possit oleo admisceri.’’!® 
Tt will be noticed that the Pope made no mention of the amount 


161 Martene, De Antiqua Eccles. Disciplina tn Divin. Celebrandis Offictis, 
cap. XXiil. 

162 Constit., Pars II, Capite inscripto ‘‘Quae ad sacramentalta vel ad sacra- 
menta communiter pertinent’’—apud Acta Eccl. Mediolan., t. I, p. 
140. 

163 Tit. 32, ec. 7—apud Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 307. 

164 Martene, De Antiqua Eccles. Disciplina im Divin. Celebrandis Offictis, 
cap. xxii. 

165 Martene, l.c., paragr. iv, n. 1. 

166 Tit. net cap. IIT, paragr. ‘‘Sed ante;’’ Cf. Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, 


p. 

167 §. C. e, 7 Sept., 1601—apud Cavallieri, Opera Liturgica, tom. IV, 
cap. 26, de Sacris Oleis, Decretum I, p. 199. 

168 ¢, 3, X, de cons. Hecl., III, 40. 


The Blessing of the Oul 32 


that might be added. Later legislation made careful note of 
the fact that the added oil should be less in quantity than the 
oil to which it is added. Thus, St. Charles, in the Fourth Pro- 
vineial Council of Milan?®® ordered the mixture to be made 
‘“quttatim,’’ drop by drop, in order to insure the addition al- 
ways of a smaller quantity. 

The Congregation of the Council’? in 1682, allowed this 
addition to be made repeatedly, even if the amount of the re- 
peated additions totalled more than the original quantity of 
blessed oil, provided, of course, that every individual increase 
of the oil was less than the bulk of blessed oil. This enactment 
of the Council was re-stated by Pius VI in a constitution,’” 
dated May 28, 1793. The Ritual, before its latest revision, al- 
lowed the replenishing of the supply of blessed oil with these 
words: ‘‘Id tamen si forte infra annum aliquo modo ita deficiat, 
ut sufficere non posse videatur, neque aliud benedictum haberi 
queat, modico oleo non benedicto, in minore quantitate superin- 
fuso reparari potest.’’ 17? The rubric of the latest edition simply 
repeats the words of the Canon.*” 

As a rule, the bishop should consecrate a sufficient amount 
at the ceremony on Holy Thursday to supply the diocese for the 
entire year.174 It is not allowable to bless a small quantity on 
that day and immediately afterwards increase the amount by 
successive additions of unblessed oil. This custom has been 
condemned twice by the Congregation of Rites. Lawfully, 
the oil cannot be added unless there is a danger that the supply 
on hand will give out before the next consecration. There must 
always exist a bona fide necessity.’ 


169 Constitutionum Pars II, cap. ‘‘ Quae ad sacramentalia vel sacramenta 
communiter spectant’’—apud Acta Eccl. Mediol., pars Ty teh ep 4 Led: 

170 Sept. 23, 1682—D. A. by Falise, v. ‘¢Oleum,’’ in nota, n. 6; also cf. 
Quarti, De Benedict., tit. 1, s. 2, dub. 5, n. 13 et 14. 

171 Const. ‘‘Sollicitudo Omnium Ecclesiarwm,’’ responsum 13—‘‘ Posse oleo 
benedicto adjungi non benedictum pluribus vicibus, ita ut oleum ad- 
junctum non consideratum separatim, et in unaquaque admixtione, 
sit in minori quantitate quam oleum benedictum, quamvis omnibus 
consideratis omnibus additionibus simul, fiat quantitas major non 
benedicti; quemadmodum resolutum fuit a S. C. Concilii, 23 Sept., 
anni 1682’’ (Bull. Taur. Edit., X, 2623). 

172 Tit. V, cap. 1, n. 3—edit. 1913. 

173 Tit. V, cap. 1, n. 3—edit. 1925. 

174 Woywod, A Practical Commentary, I, 628. 

175 Dec. 7, 1844, Patavin.,—D. A., n. 2883; 28 Jan. 1910—A. A. S., IT, 118. 

176 Cf. O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 258. 


328 Extreme Unction 


Extreme care must be taken to see that the amount of oil 
added is less in quantity than the amount already at hand. 
It is wiser, therefore, to make many additions, rather than 
undergo the risk of pouring in an amount almost equal to the 
quantity of consecrated oil. Augustine is slightly confused 
mathematically when he states: ‘‘The mixture should not ex- 
ceed the proportion of 3: 2, i. e., only one-third of common olive 
oil may be added.’’!77_ Strictly speaking, however, the mixture 
of the oil will not lose its blessing until a greater, or at least, 
an equal amount of unblessed oil has been added at one time. 

The second or third or subsequent additions need not be less 
than the amount of blessed oil present before the first addition 
was made. All that is necessary is that the added amount be 
less in quantity than the amount to which it is added. For 
example, if originally there remained five ounces of oil, three 
ounces may be added without imperilling the loss of the conse- 
eration. To these eight ounces of oil may be added six ounces 
more, for even though this is more than the original five ounces 
of consecrated oil, nevertheless, it is not as large as the sum 
total of the oil to which it has been added.17§ 

Among the older theologians, Zambranus !*? and Quintad- 
venas 18° held that the oil added to the consecrated oil, whether 
at once or at various times, should never exceed the amount of 
original blessed oil. Thus, if sixteen ounces of oil were 
blessed, the total of additions could never exceed—or even equal 
—one pound. The argument advanced by Quintadvenas is in- 
deed ingenious: 

‘¢Subjectum hujus benedictionis est illud oleum quod a principio 
fuit ab Episcopo benedictum; ergo necesse est, ut benedictio con- 
servetur, quod maneat idemmet, quia benedictio non potest esse sine 


subjecto, nec ad aliud absolute diversum transire; sed quando olei 
quantitas, etiam in diversis vicibus addita, pervenit ad tantam ex 


177 4 Commentary, IV, p. 30. O’Kane notes that in the Collections on 
Irish Church History, page 122, there is an ordinance drawn up in 
the middle of the sixteenth century prescribing that the amount of 
oil added each time shall not exceed one-third—apud The Rubrics, 
Die Bots 

178 Cf. De Sainte-Beuve, De Ext. Unct., disp. 3, a. 1, apud Migne, Curs. 
Theol. Comp., Vol. XXIV, col. 88. 

179 De Cas. Temp. Mortis, cap. 6, dub. 5, num. 5—quoted by Diana, Op. 
Coord., t. II, tr. IV, res. IV. 

180 Th, M., t. Lined, singul. 1, num. 4 et sqq.—quoted by Diana, lc. 


The Blessing of the Oil 329 


additis factam, ut si major illa cui facta est additio et initio 
fuit consecrata; jam non manet absolute idem individuum physicum 
olei et a principio consecratum, cum vix maneat aliqua pars exigua 
illius, ob quam duntaxat dici possit non simpliciter, sed secundum 
quid, idem: ergo in eo non potest manere benedictio, quae con- 
servari non valet, nisi servata identitas subjecti physici. 

‘‘Confirmatur primo: quia si oleo consecrato addatur semel seu 
una vice major pars non consecrati, nullum manet consecratum quia 
non manet idem individuum physicum; sed idem est, cum diversis 
vicibus additur major pars non benedicti, ergo nec benedictio manet. 

‘¢‘Confirmatur secundo: nam ideo quando minima pars olei non 
benedicti miscetur olei benedicti, totum manet benedictum, quia in 
commixtionibus major quantitas debet in se minorem convertere 
vel saltem ad sui identitatem trahere et ei communicare suas 
qualitates: sed hoc fieri non potest cum pars addita est notabiliter 
major; ergo nec haec poterit participare benedictionem illius. Quod 
vero major pars olei non benedicti addatur unica vel pluribus vicibus 
benedicto, non tollit, quod fit major pars.’’ 


In refutation of this, Diana 181 quotes an explanation offered 
as probable by John Uvigers, a professor at Louvain. The 
theory he offers may be summed up as follows: The mixture of 
unblessed oil with the blessed oil does not ipso facto consecrate 
the unblessed portion of the mixture. It simply makes it possible 
that the blessed oil thru such an intermixture be more widely 
diffused. Although there might be much of the substance still 
unblessed, nevertheless, every time the thumb would be dipped 
therein it would touch at least some part of blessed oil. 

This is not very satisfactory, but indeed, it is very hard 
to get a satisfactory explanation of the procedure. How can 
the mere addition of the same substance in a smaller quantity 
eause the transfer of a spiritual quality possessed by the original 
substance to the whole amount? To offer the apothegm: ‘Major 
pars trahit ad se minorem’’ does not give an explanation. The 
knowledge desired is why the greater part transfers its super- 
natural accidents to the lesser part. 

St.-Beuve explained the matter in this fashion. It is the 
right of the Church to prescribe the rite whereby the oil shall 
be consecrated. Accordingly, she may, and she has, decreed that 
the addition of unblessed oil to blessed oil in a minor quantity 
is really a rite of consecration. ‘‘Ecclesia, penes quam est deter- 


181 Op. Coord., t. II, tr. IV, res. IV. 


330 Extreme Unction 


minare ritum consecrationis olei, determinavit admixtionem 
tanquam alterum e ritibus consecrationis.’’1°* He rejects the 
teaching of others who claim that the added oil is blessed thru 
mathematical contact. Consecration is a spiritual quality; and, 
therefore, not communicated thru mathematical contact. 

However, this opinion can hardly be true. The addition 
can be made by anybody, bishop, priest, deacon, cleric, or lay- 
man. Yet, if this action were a ceremony, a rite of consecration, 
he who performs it would-be the minister. Since only bishops 
(and priests with apostolic indult) can perform such a blessing 
validly, it would be necessary to restrict to the bishop this act 
of adding unblessed oil to blessed oil. Yet there is no evi- 
dence of any such restriction in the law, and de facto such a 
thing is rarely done by bishops; indeed, not infrequently is it 
done by minor clerics. 

Catalano 183 gives as the reason why the oil thus added is 
considered blessed, the will of the Church to extend the prayers 
of the bishop not only to the oil present before him on Holy 
Thursday, but also to all the oil which will thereafter be mixed 
with it. He does not, however, prove that the Church has the 
power to do this. 

182 De Ext. Unct., disp. 3, a. 1, quaeres 4—apud Migne, Cursus Theol. 


Comp., Vol. XXIV, col. 88. 
183 Rit. Kom., t. I, p. 309. 


CHAPTER XI. 


THE RESERVATION OF THE OIL 


CANON 946. 


Oleum Infirmorum parochus loco nitido et decenter 
ornato in vase argenteo vel stanneo diligenter custodiat, 
nec domi retineat nisi ad normam can. 735. 


[ 331 ] 





CHAPTER XI. 


Holy things are to be treated in a holy fashion. Sancta 
sancte tractanda. Consequently, the Church has prescribed con- 
tinually a careful custodianship and a respectable repository for 
the oils used in her sacraments. Immediately after the oil has 
been consecrated, the bishop commands the priests to guard the 
chrism and the oil ‘‘attente et fideliter’’ under penalty of 
deprivation of honor. 

The Church has a veritable horror of the possibility that 
the oils may, under any pretext, be diverted to a use other than 
their proper function in the sacred rites which she has pre- 
scribed. Past times saw their application in instances far dif- 
ferent than were ever intended. Nefarious practices, such as 
these, gave origin to stern legislation, threatening dire penalties 
on those who were tempted to forget the deep reverence due to 
the oils. Innocent III ordered that careless custodians be sus- 
pended from office for three months; and if, thru their negli- 
gence, any sacrilege had resulted, punishments still graver were 
to be inflicted.2 The particular Councils of Magonza?® and 
Arles, both celebrated in 1318, deprived the priest of honor, 
just as the Pontificale of today. Yet, the seventeenth century 
had not seen the extirpation of every abuse, for the Thirteenth 
Council of Beneventano (1656) was compelled to legislate very 
specifically: ‘‘Neque sacra Olea sacerdos laicis ullo modo con- 
cedat ne illis abutantur; alioquin laici ipso facto facti sint 
excommunicati; clerici vero beneficiati suspensione, benefic- 
orum privatione ac etiam exilio a civitate et dioecest mulctentur ; 
non-beneficiati carceris annalis, ac deinde eandem exili poenam 
incurrant,’’® 

1 Pontificale Rom., tit. ‘‘Benedictio Olet Cat.’’—‘‘ Pontifex jubet presby- 
teros attente, ut juxta Canonum traditionem, chrisma et olea fideliter 
custodiant et nulli sub praetextu medicinae vel maleficii tradere 
praesumant, alioquin honore priventur.’’ 

20. 1, X, de custod. Euchar., Chrism., et aliorwm Saor., III, 44. 

3 can. 27—apud Catalano, Rit. Rom., tom. I, p. 74. 


4 can. 18—apud Catalano, l.c. 
5 tit. 49, ‘‘De Officio Parocht,’’ n. 35, apud Catalano, Rit. Kom., t. I, p. 76. 


[ 333] 


334 Extreme Unction 


The Code is quite detailed in its regulations in regard to 
the keeping of the sacred oils. It seems especially solicitous 
about the oil of the sick, for a special canon is inserted to re- 
affirm the regulation made about the three oils in general in 
Canon 735. The prescriptions of both canons dove-tail with 
each other and must be considered together. 

The vessel which holds the oil must be made of silver, or 
at least of lead or tin. ‘‘Stannum’’ was a metal composed of 
a mixture of lead and silver in Ciceronic times; but in later 
Latin it acquired the signification of ‘‘tin.’’ 

This prescription of the Code in regard to the vessel is not 
new. The Ritual, both before and after its latest revision, coin- 
cided with the law of the Code.* It was required even before 
the promulgation of the Roman Ritual, as is evidenced by- the 
enactment of the Councils of Salernitano’? and Beneventum,® 
ordering that the oils ‘‘asserventur in vase argenteo, vel saltem 
stanneo apte fabrefacto.’’ Baruffaldo® notes that gold vessels 
are not excluded, if the Church is rich enough to afford their 
purchase. Some authors quoted by him declare the inadvisability 
of using very pure gold, because it is too soft for practical use. 
Copper may not be used, for it corrodes and thereby corrupts 
the oil.1° Fragile substances, as glass, brick, earthen-ware, 
marble and tile, are equally unsuitable.14 Wood is excluded 
because of its absorptive powers,!* and brass because of its 
aptitude to rust and tarnish.1? Pewter, a mixture of lead, tin 
and copper, may lawfully be employed.* 

The vessel itself should be securely closed by means of a 
detachable cap made of the same metal as the vessel itself.’° 
Baruffaldo 1° advises that the cap should be of such a size as 
to fit only the vessel of the Olewm Infirmorum. Some inscrip- 
tion, such as OI or EXTR. UNCT., should be engraved in large 


Ce Tits Vi cap.a eres 

7 anno 1579, tit. 32—apud Catalano, op. cit., p. 307. 

8 anno 1374, tit. III, cap. 1—apud Catalano, l.c. 

9 Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., t. I, tit. X, n. 16. 

10 De Herdt, Lit. Praw., III, 157; Baruffaldo, Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., 1.c. n. 7. 
11 De Herdt, l.c., Baruffaldo, l.c. 

12 Baruffaldo, l.c., n. 18. 

13 Baruffaldo, l.c., De Herdt, Le. 

14 Amer. Eccl. Review, vol. XXXI, p. 373. 

15 Amer. Ecc. Review, l.c.; Maringola, Institut. Liturg., vol. 1, p. 343. 
16 Ad Rit. Bam. Comm., tom. I, tit. 27, n. 46. 


The Reservation of the Oul 335 


characters on the side of the vessel—and it is well to have a 
corresponding inscription upon the cap.’” 


As a general rule, each church has a large vessel for each 
oil. For daily use smaller vessels may be used; and may be 
separate from one another or conjoined. This is explicitly 
allowed by the Ritual in regard to the oils required in Baptism aa 
and commentators extend this to the oil of the sick.1? O’Kane 
notes that in missionary countries the three vessels are usually 
joined together, making a cylinder about three inches in length. 
Each compartment is distinct and is marked with its proper 
letter.22 In the United States the chrism is marked SC or 
S. CHR., the Oil of the Catechumens as SO or OC, and the 
Oleum Infirmorum as OI. 


Some absorbent substance should be placed in the smaller 
vessels in order to prevent the oil from spilling. Cotton is 
admirable for this purpose and is usually used. Instead of 
cotton, lint may be employed, and likewise shreds of silk or a 
small sponge. All of these absorb the oil very readily, and quite 
as readily yield it at the slightest pressure of the thumb.*? 


The vessel of oil should be encased in a burse of leather,”? 
which is lined with purple silk. Burses for the smaller vessels 
should have attached double silken strings, purple in color, so 
that they may be suspended from the neck of the priest.2? The 
base of the burse, Baruffaldo advises,** should be broad and 
stiff, so that it can stand upright, thus holding the vessel of 
oil in its correct position. 


When not in use the oil should repose in an armariwm or 


17 Baruffaldo, l.c., n. 45; Amer. Eccl. Review, l.c. ; O’Kane, The Rubrics, 
n. 262. 


Peet ileal, Theol. 

19 O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 262. 

20 Op. cit., n. 261. 

21 Baruffaldo, Ad Rom. Rit. Comm., tit. X, n. 22. 

22 Rit. Rom., tit. V, cap. 2, n. 2; Amer. Eccl. Review, vol. XXXI, p. 373. 
23 Heuser, The Parish Priest, p. 94; Baruffaldo, op. cit., tit. 27, n. 47-48. 
24 Lec. 


336 Extreme Unction 


ambry. St. Charles called it a “ciborium,’’> while the Council 
of Ravenna (1312) termed it ‘‘sacristia.’’*® It should be made 
of strong wood, square in form, and as large as is needed.?? 
Purple silk should line the inside walls.** A little door, tightly 
closing, should guard the entrance to the ambry, which must 
be kept under lock and key.*® Finally, there should be an 
inscription upon the outside of the door denoting the contents 
(e. g., ‘“‘OLEUM INFIRMORUM”’’). 

The obligation of keeping the oil under lock and key is 
very ancient. In 1122 the Synod of Oxoniensis ordered this 
safeguard for the oils.2? A century later, Innocent III pre- 
scribed this in regard to the chrism and the Eucharist.*’ The 
Council of Magonza, celebrated in 1310, ordered the keeping 
of the oil ‘‘sub fideli custodia, clavibus adhibitis.’’** St. Charles, 
in the Fourth Provincial Council of Milan,** assigned the keep- 
ing of the key to the rector personally, ordering him to relin- 
quish it to no one but another priest who needed the oul for 
a sick-call. The new Code gives the same command, as is eVl- 
denced by the express terminology of canon 735. The pastor is 
to keep the oils ‘‘sub clavi diligenter.’’ DeHerdt ** notes the 
advisability of having two keys, but he directs that both of them 
be held by the rector. 

The armarium is to be kept in the church as a general rule. 
Its most suitable place is upon the side wall of the church on the 
gospel side of the high altar (or altar where the Blessed Sacra- 


25 III Prov. Conc. Mediol., cap. ‘‘Quae ad Sacramentalia et Sacramenta 
pertinent’’—apud Acta Lccl. Medtolanen., pars 1, tom. I, page 97. 
N. B. St. Charles certainly did not mean the tabernacle by this 
word. This is clear from the legislation he enacted in the IV Prov. 
Council of Milan (capite inscripto ‘‘Quae ad SS. Euchar. Sacra- 
mentum pertinent’’—apud Acta Eccles. Medtolan., pars IV, tom. I, 
p. 143). There his enactment ordered that the tabernacle wherein 
the Blessed Sacrament was preserved ‘‘vauum etiam sit a reliquiis, 
vasculo Olei Infirmorum, atque inani alio vase.’’ 

26 rub. vii—Harduin VII, 1364. 

27 Maringola, Institut. Liturg., t. I, p. 343; Baruffaldo, dd Rt. Rom. 
Comm., t. I, tit. 27, n. 42. 

28 Baruffaldo, l.c. 

29 Baruffaldo, l.c. 

30 can. 24; cf. Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. 1, p. 74. 

31 ¢. 1, X, de custodia Euchar., Chris. et al. sacr., III, 44. 

32 Mansi, XXV, 329. 

83 Constit. pars secunda, cap. ‘‘Quae ad sacramentalia et sacramenta 
pertinent’’—apud Acta Eccl. Mediolan, p. I, tom. I, page 140. 

34 Ist. Prax., TEI, 157. 








The Reservation of the Ou 337 


ment is kept), so that it will be a participant in the rays of 
light that shine from the tabernacle lamp.* It should be hung 
at such a height that the ordinary man can open the door 
without stooping or without using a step or a ladder.°® Accord- 
ing to the Caeremoniale Episcoporum*’ the oil of the sick should 
have a special ambry of its own. The reason for this is that 
the oil of the sick should be kept in the church proper, while 
the other two oils may be placed in the baptistry (which is 
sometimes a separate building) or in the baptismal font. Thus 
the Synod of Ferrara declared: ‘‘Fenestellam propriam, atque 
ad hoe unice praeparatam, habere debet Sanctum Oleum In- 
firmorum, quam nonnulli vocant Armarium. Propria ista debet 
esse haec fenestella in parte Ecclesiae ad cornu Evangelii seu in 
quo adsit Tabernaculum cum Sanctissima Eucharistia.’’33 A 
further reason for placing the oils near the altar where the 
Blessed Sacrament is kept is the convenience it affords when 
it is necessary to bring both at once on sick-calls. 

The holy oils may certainly not be kept within the taber- 
nacle.8? They may be placed, however, in a drawer beside the 
tabernacle or even in the very framework of it.4° It is not 
strictly commanded by the Code that the ambry should be 
hung on the gospel side of the altar of the Blessed Sacrament. 
The words ‘‘in ecclesia’? do not confine the locality of the 
ambry to any particular part of the church. The Sacred Con- 
eregation of Rites permitted their repose in any becoming place, 
‘“sive in cornu Epistolae, sive in cornu Evangelii.+ Hven the 
sacristy is not excluded as a location of the ambry. At first 
blush it may seem to be prohibited. Canon 1172 certainly 
excludes the sacristy as part of the church; and the law of the 
Decretals#2 mentions both the oil and the Blessed Sacrament in 
the same enactment and requires that both should be kept in the 


35 O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 859; Baruffaldo, Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., t. I, tit. 
27, n. 40. 

36 Baruffaldo, op. cit., 1. ¢., nD. 42. 

Bre iib. +1,700. 0,792. 

88 apud D. A., vol. IV, p. 283—Comm. ad decr. 2650, qu. 3. 

39 §. C. EE. et RR., 3 Maii, 1693, apud Cavallieri, Opera Liturgica, t. IV, 
¢, 6, decr.. 13, n. I, 

40 O’Kane, The Rubrics, nu. 856. 

41 §. R. C., Ariminen., 16 Jun. 1663—D. A., 2. 1260. 

42 ¢, 1, X, de Custod. Euchar., Chrism. et al. Sacr., III, 44. 





338 Extreme Unction 


church. Since the Blessed Sacrament’s place is in the taber- 
nacle of the altar, it would seem to follow that the oils should 
likewise be kept in the church proper. But Canon 1172, however, 
deals with ‘‘odiosa,’’? and as a result demands a very strict 
interpretation. Furthermore, the insertion of the phrase ‘‘in 
ipsa ecclesia’’ makes impossible the more generous interpretation 
of ‘‘eeclesia’’ so as to inelude the sacristy. ‘‘In favorabilibus’’ 
the sacristy is considered part of the church. All authors allow 
the permissibility of fulfilling the Sunday precept by hearmg 
Mass from the sacristy. Furthermore, in virtue of Canon 1269, 
3, the Blessed Sacrament itself can be removed (for a serious 
reason approved by the Ordinary) from the tabernacle at night 
and put in a safer place. This ‘‘safer place’’ may surely be 
the sacristy. Moreover, this very canon that we are treating, 
permits the transfer of the oils under certain conditions even 
to the rectory. As a consequence, the argument from analogy 
seems sufficient to allow the erection of the ambry in the sae- 
ristyse 


“‘Nec domi retineat msi ad normam can. 735.7’ 


The latter part of the canon forbids the keeping of the 
oils in the rectory without permission of the Ordinary obtained 
for a just and sufficient reason. There have been several de- 
erees of the Congregation of Rites on this question. In 1826 
it condemned an existing custom of having the oils in the house 
for reasons of convenience, except in the parishes where the 
rectory was situated at a great distance from the Church.4* In 
1872 the same congregation declared that the fact that the 
rectory was separate from the church was not sufficient cause 
to keep the oils at home; and ordered an observance of the 
decree of 1826.4°.. This decree was in turn confirmed in a reply 
given to the Bishop of Compostella who had asked whether the 
custom existing in the rural parishes of his dioceses of keeping 
the oils in the rectory might likewise be extended to city par- 


43 Cf. Blat, Comm. Tect., lib. III, pars I, n. 14. 

44 8. R. C., Gandav., 16 Dec. 1826, ad tertiam facti speciem—D. A., n. 2650. 

45 §. R. C., Toletana, Aug. 31, 1872 ad V—D. A., n. 3276; A. S. S., 
XII, 308. 


The Reservation of the Oul 339 


ishes.46 A second confirmation of the decree of 1872 was made 
two years later, when the Holy See declared that the meon- 
venience of summoning sleeping servants to open the church’s 
doors for night calls was not enough to allow a transfer of the 
oils from the church to the parish house.4?7 In every case the 
Congregation has refused to relax the strictness of the law, ad- 
mitting an exception only in the single ease of great distance 
from the church. 

The Chureh always remembers that her sacraments are 
holy things and must be treated with the utmost reverence. 
Though this be so, she remembers, too, that they are “‘propter 
homines’’ always. Hence, whenever there is danger that the 
interests of her children may be imperilled by unnecessary de- 
lay in the administration of such an important sacrament, she 
has allowed the feasibility of serving her children to mellow 
the firmness of her prescriptions. Thus Canon 735 allows the 
oil to be kept in the house, not alone when it is a great distance 
from the church, but when any necessity or just cause exists in 
a particular place. The pastor, however, is not the judge of 
the seriousness of the reason, but must submit it to the Ordinary 
for his approval and consent. Blat** and Ferreres * imply 
that when necessity is present, the Ordinary’s permission is 
not required, whereas if a grave cause for the transfer of the 
oils exists, it should be passed upon by the bishop. Other 
authors, like Vermeersch-Creusen®® and Woywod,”? mention no 
such distinction. Accordingly, if the necessity is foreseen to 
be short-lived, Blat’s opinion may be safely acted upon. H, on 
the other hand, it is known that the necessity will be of long 
duration, or if it is uncertain whether it is a case of real 
necessity, it is wiser and safer to obtain the Ordinary’s per- 
mission. 

A necessity can arise from many causes. A destruction 
of the church by fire or storm would surely be a necessity. 


46 §, R. C., Compostellana, 15 Nov. 1890, ad TI—D. A., n. 3739; A. 8. S., 
XXIII, 636. 

47 §, R. C., Laudenen., 23 Jun. 1892, ad VII —D. A., n. WAY RIGS: ots) a8 
XXV, 114-15. 

48 Comm. Tect., lib. III, p. I, n. 14. 

49 Comp. Th. M., IT, 836. 

50 Fit., II, 19. 

51 A: Practical Commentary, I, nu. 630. 


340 Extreme Unction 


Danger of irreverence to the oils when left in the church or 
sacristy would also constitute a ‘‘necessity.’’ Rome preferred 
to permit the keeping of the oils in the priest’s house rather 
than to leave them in a sacristy accessible to non-Catholies.* 

A just cause would be present when the rectory is situated 
at a considerable distance (not necessarily a great distance) 
from the church.®? Just how far this distance must be depends 
largely on local circumstances. If the time necessarily consumed 
to reach the church is ordinarily enough to put the priest to 
serious inconvenience or imperil the opportune reception of the 
sacrament on the part of the sick, the distance is sufficient to 
obtain permission to preserve the oils in the rectory. Other 
good reasons would be the frequency of emergency calls, as in 
times of plague or in parishes wherein accident hospitals are 
situated.°* Besides the existence of the just cause, there must 
also be had the permission of the Ordinary, as the canon re- 
quires. Blat °° notes that it is quite enough if the permission 
be tacit ‘‘seu ex factis ejus deducta cirea illam causam.”’ 


What, then, can be said of the custom existing almost every- 
where in the United States of keeping the oil in the rectory? 
It is certainly general, and by no means confined to any par- 
ticular dioceses, provinces or regions.°® In view of the line of 
decisions given by the Congregation of Rites, it would be rash 
to assert that this custom would be approved, except, of course, 
where special reasons exist. Moreover, in the opinion of a 
writer in the American Ecclesiastical Review,’ this custom 
is altogether unlawful. However, as Augustine notes,°® it is 
not formally reprobated by the text of the canon. Perhaps, 
too, the contention of Blat, that a tacit permission of the bishop 
suffices, may avail to some extent to excuse our priests. 

It is wisely noted by O’Kane °° that the same reason for 
keeping the oil of the sick in the priest’s house will not suffice 





528. C. P. F., (C. G.—Helvetiae) 7 Mar. 1805—Coll., n. 685. 

53 Cf. Vermeersch-Creusen, Fpit., II, 19; O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 267. 

54 Ferreres, Comp. Th. M., II, 836; Hanley, Treatise on Sacr. of Eztr. 
Unct., p. 10. 

55 Comm. Tect., lib. III, pars I, n. 14. 

56 Augustine, 4 Commentary, IV, page 31. 

57 vol. XVIII, p. 430. 

58 Lc. 

59 The Rubrics, n. 267. 


De ~ . Tenedeet ee sel pees hd 


The Reservation of the Oul 341 


for that of keeping the chrism with it, much less the oil of 
the catechumens.®® In rare instances only will a priest be called 
upon to use them outside the baptistery. Sudden baptisms, 
performed privately, require chrism if handy, according to 
the prescriptions of Canon 759, 1; but the Oleum Infirmorum 
is rarely used except when the child is brought to the church. 
The exceptional case where, by permission of the Ordinary, 
solemn baptism may be administered outside the baptistery (Can. 
776, § 1, 2°), is too infrequent to justify the retention in any 
other place than the baptistery of the oils used in the cere- 
mony. 


When the oils are removed to the house, the rubric and 
the canon must be observed in regard to the ‘‘loeus decens.’’** 
For this purpose it is advisable to procure an ambry similar to 
those erected in the churches. If this is not done, the compart- 
ment used must be clean and suitable for the purpose.®? ‘‘Ser- 
vandum itaque est religiose,’? warns Van der Stappen,* ‘‘non 
eum aliis suppellectilibus et domesticis utensilibus ; sed in propria 
et speciali capsula, ac semper sub sera.’’ Hanley °* is of the 
opinion that a drawer in the priest’s desk will suffice. It stands 
to reason that a drawer thus employed should not be elut- 
tered with profane articles, although it would hardly be wrong 
to preserve therein other sacred things, such as relics, &e. 


The possibility of emergency calls will occasionally raise 
the question of the permissibility of removing the oils from 
their repository to a more convenient place. If the interest 
of souls is at stake, surely a relaxation of the law can be 
temporarily presumed. This is deducible from a decision of 
the Holy See in 1893 which tolerated the custom of transferring 
the oil of the sick from its ambry in the church to a suitable 
place near arenas where bull-fights were being held. At the 





60 There can be hardly any reason whatsoever for bringing the oil of the 
catechumens or the holy chrism along with the oil of the sick on 
sick-calls. Such a custom is altogether without excuse. Cf, O’Kane, 
op. cit., n. 911; article by ‘‘Peregrinus Gasolinus,’’ in The Acolyte, 
Walwiicitis Spor os 

61 §. R. C., Gandav., 16 Dec. 1826, ad tertiam facti speciem—D. A., n. 2650. 

62 Heuser, The Parish Priest, p. 94. 

63 Sac. Lit., t. IV, Q. 216. 

64 Treatise on the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, p. 10. 

65 §. Poenitent., 19 Sept., 1893—A. S. S., XXVI, p. 447. 


342 Extreme Unction 


same time it was noted that such a custom must not be tolerated 
if it is known that it promotes the sport, or seemingly approves 
it in any way. A fortiori no such transfer of the oils may be 
made by agreement (ex condicto). 

Another case of temporary emergency arises when a pastor 
expects a sick-call during the night. Older authors fell into 
much discussion about this case. Barbosa ®® holds a compara- 
tively stern opinion: ‘‘Non bene agere parochum timentem de 
nocte se voeandum pro infirmo periculoso, si vespere ferat oleum 
ad suum cubiculum, ut vocatus expeditius vadat; vel si de 
nocte reversus ab unctione infirmi, oleum retineat domi usque 
mane; nullum tamen credit mortale peccatum contrahere citra 
scandalum vel periculum alicujus irreverentiae.’’ Alphonsus %7 
and Seavini ®8 coneur in this view, if there is no danger that 
the pastor will arrive too late thru the inconvenience of pro- 
euring the oils from the church. Gobat*®? is somewhat more 
liberal. He admits the lawfulness of keeping the oils immedi- 
ately at hand for the sick call, but he does not excuse from 
all fault if the oils are not returned to the church immediately 
after their use, unless inclement weather prevails. Later authors 
make no division of the night into the period prior to the 
call and that subsequent to the call. Genicot-Salsmans says 
simply that it is permissible to bring the oils to the house ‘‘in 
casu transeunte quo citius noctu accurri possit ad infirmum 
qui brevi inungendus videtur.’’”? Blat™ speaks in similar 
fashion; and this opinion may be safely followed. 

In these altogether individual instances the permission of 
the Ordinary for this temporary removal of the oil is by no 
means required. The law contemplates the retention of the oil 
‘‘ner modum habitus,’’ and does not refer to cases of this kind. 
‘‘Jure nihilominus,’’ De Amicis writes,’* ‘‘asservatio in domo 
prohibita quae est habitualis intelligitur, haud illa quam ali- 


66 De Offic. et Potest. Parochi, pars 2, cap. 22, n. 44. 
CTO Ther Mas Vis ioU. 

68 Th. M., III, 533. 

69 Moral., Tract. VIII, n. 931-2. 

70 Inst; Th. M., ILe421. 

71 Comm. Teat., lib. 3, pars I, n. 14. 

72 Caeremoniale Parochoruwm, n. 198, 2. 





The Reservation of the Oil 343 


quando excusare necessitas potest; sacramenta enim propter 
homines Christus Dominus instituit.’’ 


A final word should be said of the practice of many priests 
in the United States of carrying with them continually the Oil 
of the Sick. There is no doubt that such a practice would be 
permissible in places where the priest is habitwally in danger 
of being called upon to administer the sacrament in cases when 
delay is fatal. Circumstances such as these arise in times of 
plague, in emergency hospitals or at mining camps. Mission- 
aries who have stations far away from their permanent post 
are often compelled to carry the oils with the rest of their 
paraphernalia when they visit these missions. These conditions 
are exceptional indeed, although they are not unheard of in 
our land. Where they exist, priests may, without scruple, carry 
on their persons continually the oil of the unction. Rules and 
rubrics were made for normal times, and do not bind under 
extraordinary circumstances. ; 


But what can be said of priests who do this in large cities 
and flourishing dioceses, where missionary privileges can hardly 
be called into justification? The question was answered in the 
Ecclesiastical Review, and is quoted here at length: 


‘¢The law prescribes both the reservation of the Holy Oils in 
an abode separate from his own and the solemn manner of administer- 
ing the same. ‘Habeat igitur parochus loco nitido, &c. Oleum 
infirmorum,’ etc., and then adds by ways of indicating the exception 
to this reservation and solemn treatment: ‘Quodsi longius iter 
peragendum, aut etiam equitandum sit, vel alias adsit periculum 
effusionis, vas olei sacculo aut bursa inclusum ad collum appendat ut 
commodius et securius perferat.? The words ‘ut commodius et 
securius perferat’ imply that the Church yields something for the 
sake of convenience as well as necessity. Her decisions are quite 
in harmony with this spirit of tolerance, although she never permits 
us to lose sight of the fact that reverence and the observance of 
ordinary rules of decorum must not be overridden by mere custom 
or the negligence which human infirmity sometimes styles ‘conveni- 
ence,’ and which is not the same as the ‘commodius’ of the rubrics. 
[Here the decision of the Congregation of the Rites, Gandaven., 
16 Dec. 1826—D. A., n. 2650—is quoted in full.] In judging, 
therefore, whether a priest may keep the Holy Oils in his coat- 
pocket habitually in order that he may be ready at all times to 
administer the sacrament promptly, it is not so much his convemence 


344 Extreme Unction 


that he has to consult as rather the convenience of the people for 
whose benefit he holds his charge. 

‘‘In view of the not infrequent calls made upon priests in 
America to assist the dying in railroad accidents and other emergen- 
cies, when there is no likelihood that the local priest would be on 
hand, the question of distance and opportunity must be taken more 
leniently than in well-settled Catholic communities in Catholic coun- 
tries, where such demands are rarely made upon a priest. Rubricists 
like Van der Stappen recognize even for Belgium and other Catholic 
countries certain exceptions. ‘Excipitur,’ says the latter author, 
‘casus infirmi periclitantis dum parochus probabile praevidet quod 
in morte vocatus ad conferendam Sanctam Unctionem praesto non 
foret, ut promptus accurrat ad illam morituro ministrandum.’ This 
precaution may be applied, we think, in a wider sense by priests on 
a journey when they are out of reach of the ordinary ministrations 
of the Church. And in large cities much allowance must be made 
for a priest who feels he is acting in the interest of souls when he 
keeps. his oil-stocks within constant reach, showing his reverence in 
other ways. For the rest, bishops and other superiors may well 
regulate such usages for their localities, as they are the judges of 
what necessity and the salvation of souls demand within the limits 
of their jurisdiction.’’73 


Since the above has been written the danger of accidents 
has increased alarmingly. Automobiles daily take a toll of 
victims; and the feverishness of our commercial and social life 
demand fast-flying trains at the expense of safety. Certainly 
the arguments of the writer avail a fortiori in the present day. 

Yet if this reason is not sufficiently convincing to some for 
an habitual earrying of the oil upon their person, it should, 
nevertheless, be enough to justify it in some particular and 
temporary instances. It will be permissible, for instance, for a 
priest to bring the oil of the sick with him on every visit to a 
hospital not well supplied with priestly attention. Railroad 
and automobile journeys are other examples of the possibility 
of meeting emergency calls for the administration of this last 
sacrament. How far local conditions permit the habitual carry- 
ing of the holy oil depends largely on the judgment and discre- 
tion of the priest, who will always keep in mind the law of 
his Ritual and of the Code, which strictly prohibits such prac- 
tices under normal conditions. 





73 Vol. XLVIII, (1913), p. 459. 


CHAPTER XI. 


THE RITE OF ADMINISTRATION 


CANON 947 


1. Unctiones verbis, ordine et modo in libris ritua- 
libus praescripte, accurate peragantur; in casu autem 
necessitatis sufficit unica unctic in uno sensu seu rectius 
in frente cum praescripta forma breviore, salva obliga- 
tione singulas unctiones supplendi, cessante periculo. 


2. Unctio renum semper omittatur. 


3. Unctio pedum ex qualibet rationabili causa omitti 
potest. 


4. Extra casum gravis necessitatis, unctiones ipsa 
ministri manu nulloque adhibito instrumento fiant. 






Aga att =~ Ps 7 vita ‘ = 


. 7 
> t Te Leon ty af “y 7 7 m il on ane 4% Mi aa 
PPh ih TORTI ce ON cL la 
. ~ Bile A ’ ' iu © yc. 
1h) hel th... oC al, i LL | nba b 
WA Ce ag 12 Ee eh 2 eae eee 








BA 


. 
iy ire 





CHAPTER XII. 


I. THe Move or ADMINISTRATION. 
I. The Ordinary Mode. 


1. Unctiones verbis ordine et modo in libris ritualibus prae- 
seripto accurate peragantur : 


The Code has left to the last canon of the title the con- 
sideration of the actual confection of the sacrament, i. e., the 
application of the proximate matter to a subject simultaneously 
with the pronouncement of the form. The history and discus- 
sion of other ritualistic modes of administration have been dis- 
posed of in Canon 937, so that we may address ourselves immedi- 
ately to the confection of the sacrament as performed in the 
Latin Church according to the Roman Ritual. 


“‘Unctiones.”’ 

In his decree to the Armenians, Eugene IV not only men- 
tioned the places of unction, but also the reasons why they 
were anointed. ‘‘In his locis ungendus est [infirmus] : 1 ocults 
propter visum, mm auribus propter auditum, in naribus propter 
odoratum, in ore propter gustam vel loquutionem, im mambus 
propter tactum, in pedibus propter gressum, in renibus propter 
delectationem ibidem vigentem.’! St. Thomas* had advanced 
these same reasons in his writings, adding with Dionysius the 
Carthusian:3 ‘‘Omnis autem nostra cognitio a sensu ortum 
habet; et quia ubi est in nobis prima origo peccati, ibi debet 
medicina‘ adhiberi, ideo inunguntur loca quinque sensuum.’’ 
The learned Cathusian further remarks: ‘‘Et propter appetitum 
a quibusdam renes unguntur, et propter vim motivam pedes, 
tanquam instrumenta ejus praecipua.”’ 


1 Const. ‘‘Exultate Deo,’’ (In Cone. Florentin.), 22 Nov., 1439—paragr. 
; 14, C. I. C. Fontes, n. 52. 

2 Suppl. q. 32, a. 5 & 6. 

3 Comm. in IV Lib. Sent., dist. 23, q. 3, paragr. ‘‘Insuper.’’ 

4 al. unctto. 


[ 347 ] 


348 EHatreme Unction 


Prior to the Code the Ritual prescribed seven anointments, 
but the revision of the Ritual ‘‘ad normam Codicis’’ omits the 
unction of the loins, in accordance with the second paragraph 
of this canon. It is understood, of course, that one priest only 
is to administer the sacrament, except in the unusual circum- 
stances mentioned in the treatment of Canon 938, 1.° 


The canon makes three requirements in regard to the per- 
formance of the unctions. .They must be done with the words, 
in the order and after the manner prescribed by the Ritual. 
Each requirement will receive a separate consideration. 


A) Verbis. 


The form prescribed by the Ritual for the various unctions 
reads thus: ‘‘Per istam sanctam unctionem et suam piissimam 
misericordiam indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid per (here the 
name of the sense anointed is inserted) deliquisti.’? The identical 
words are used for each anointing excepting the change of the 
name of the sense. There is serious obligation to use this form, 
even in a case where an equally valid form might be substituted. 
Such a change would violate the prescription of the Council of 
Florence ® and the rubries of the Roman Ritual. Thus Benedict 
XIV 7 notes: ‘‘Injungendum est parochis ut formam adhibeant 
in Rituali praescriptam, quae ecerte sine gravi flagitio, non 
potest privata auctoritate immutari.’’ 


Just how much of this prescribed form is essential has 
been mooted much by theologians. To leave any of it out is, of 
course, illicit, but no theologian holds the absolute essentiality 
of all the words. There is much difference of opinion, however, 
as to what is absolutely essential, and also as to what words, 
though not absolutely essential, can be omitted without grave sin. 


Perhaps the most liberal of all is the opinion of Juenin, 


5 Cf. supra, chap. iii, p. 91 sq 

8 Const. ‘‘ Hxultate Deo,”? ite cones Florentin.), 22 Nov., 1439—paragr. 
14—C, I. C. Fontes, n. 52. 

7 De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, c. 2, n. 2. 


The Rite of Admuistration 349 


who holds that the only essential words are ‘‘Indulgeat tibi 
Deus.’”® 


Perin ® and Sambovius ?° feel that ‘‘quidquid deliquisti’’ is 
amply implied in the word ‘‘indulgeat,’’ but that the action of 
the minister should be expressed. Hence for them the essence 
of the form consists in the words ‘‘Per istam unctionem indul- 
eeat tibi Deus’’ (Dominus). To this opinion De Sainte-Beuve * 
and more recently, Pesch,/* adhere. Kenrick,!* D’Annibale,'* 
Salmanticenses }° and Bucceroni ?° indicate that the opinion that 
the phrase ‘‘quidquid delrquistr’’ is necessary seems more prob- 
able. The majority of theologians, however, insist explicitly or . 
implicitly that this clause is absolutely essential to the form." 


In the phrase ‘‘Per istam sanctam unctionem,’’ the word 
‘‘sanctam’’ is generally conceded to be non-essential. It is 


8 De Sacramentts in Genere et in Specie, diss. VII, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ 
qu. 4, concl. 2, quaeres 2. N. B., Juenin uses the word ‘‘ Deus’’ 
for ‘*Dominus.’’ Such minor changes are found often in the older 
authors, as ‘‘hanc’’ for ‘“Séstam,’? “fremitiat’’ or *‘parcat’’ for 
‘‘indulgeat.’’ They do not change the sense, and, therefore, do 
not affect our question of what words are essential. The Catechism 
of the Council of Trent (De Eat. Unct., n. 6), though recognizing 
the identity of signification, nevertheless urged uniformity even of 
wording. 

9 De Ext. Unct., art. 1, quaeres 8. 

10 Tract. de Ext. Unct., disp. IV, a. 3. 

1M Pe Lx. Unet.,,disp. LV, art. 3 
vol. XXIV, col. 98. 

12 Prael. Dogm., VII, n. 532. 

13 Th. M., III, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ cap. unic., n. 4. 

14 Summ. Th. M., ITI, 415. 

15 Cursus Th. M., tom. I, cap. 2, punct. 4, n. 30. 

16 Inst. Mor., pars. IJ, vol. ITI, n. 865. 

17 Cf. LaCroix, Th. M., 1. 6, pars 2, n. 2097; Homo Ap., (S. Alph. Lig. 
auctore) tr. 17, cap. 1, n. 5—also cf, Th. M., VI, 711; Diana, 
Opera Coord., tom. II, tract. IV, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.’’ res. 15; Nugno, 
Addit. ad III part., tom. IT, q. 29, a. 9, concl. 4; Suarez, d. 40, sec. 
3; Coninck, De Sac. et Censuris, disp. 19, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ dub. IV; 
Gobat, Moraliwm, tr. 8, n. 800; Tamburini, Th. M., tom. IT, lib. 6, 
“*De. Ext. Unct.,’’ cap. I, paragr. 3, n. 2; Laymann, Th. M., Lib. V, 
tr. VIII, cap. III, in fine; Elbel-Bierbaum, Th. M., III, P. 
VIII, Conf. IX, n. 195; Illsung, tr. 6, d. 7, n. 4; Sporer-Kazen- 
berger, Suppl. Theol. Sacr., c. 2, n. 72; Babenstuber, Ethica Super- 
naturalis, tr. 8, P. 6, disp. 7, a. 2, n. 11; Mastrio, Th. M., disp. XXII, 
‘“De Ext. Unct.,’’ q. 2, a. 2, n. 27-8; also more recent theologians as 
AErtnys, Th. M., IT, 359; Noldin, De Sac. 436; Tanquerey, Th. D., 
III, n. 774; Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 418; Arregui, Th. 
M., n. 662; Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Th. M., vol. V, Tr. X, Sect. VI, 
‘“‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ n. 21; Vermeersch, Th, M., III, 654; Ferreres, 
Comp. Th, M., II, 838; etc. 





apud Migne, Cursus Theol. Comp., 


350 Extreme Unction 


found in the short form used in cases of necessity ;'% but it is 
omitted in the form specified by the Council of Florence %® and 
by the Council of Trent.2° Ballerini-Palmieri*’ thinks that 
‘Cistam’? is not required for validity, and Suarez’ is very 
dubious about its necessity. To them the specific unction spoken 
of is sufficiently determined by the action of the priest at the 
time the form is being pronounced. However, practically all 
other theologians demand the use of this demonstrative, and 
even Ballerini advises against its omission in practice. 

A fortiori the entire phrase ‘‘per istam unectionem’’ is gen- 
erally held to be absolutely necessary for validity. There are 
some dissenting voices. Juenin, as noted above, Arcudius* and 
Drouven 24 deny any such necessity for this phrase in the form. 
Juenin asserts that there is no need to express the proximate 
matter in this sacrament any more than in Penance or in Orders, 
where there is no mention of the action of the minister. Arcu- 
dius claims its non-essentiality on the ground that it is not 
expressed in the Greek form, where it would be found if at all 
essential. Drouven enumerates both of these reasons as the 
basis of his opinion. 

The common teaching, however, is confirmed to some extent 
by the insertion of the phrase in the formula given by the 
Holy Office in 1906 for cases of necessity.*° It cannot be argued 
with finality that this insertion settles the question, for the very 
evident reason that this brief form contains two words, ‘‘sanc- 
tam’’ and ‘‘Amen,’’ which no author claims to be essential. 

The phrase ‘‘per suam piissimam misericordiam’’ has been 
the cause of much dispute. It is generally taught that “‘plis- 





18 Rom. Rit., tit. V, cap. I, n. 21 (edit. <‘Ad normam Codicis,’’ 1925). 

19 Const. ‘‘Exzultate Deo’’ (in Cone. Florentin.) 22 Nov. 1439, paragr. 
14, Denziger-Bannwart, in the Enchiridion (n. 700), includes ‘‘sanc- 
tam’’ in the form announced to the Armenians by the constitution 
of Eugene IV. He is evidently mistaken, for it is not found in the 
works he quotes as sources, viz., Mansi (XXXI, 1058); Harduin (1X, 
440B); Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastict (anno 1439—vol. 28, p. 290), 
&c. Neither is it found in the ‘‘Bullarum, §c., KR. P. Taur. Edit.,’’ 
tom. V, p. 50, nor in the excerpts taken therefrom for the ‘‘ Fontes’’ 
(n. 52). 

20 Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct., cap. 1. 

21 Opus Th. M., vol. V, Tr. X, sect. 6, n. 21. 

22 D. 40, s. 3, n. 13. 

23 De Concordia Ecclesiae Occident., lib. 5, cap. 2. 

24 De Re Sacramentaria, lib. 7, qu. 3, in fine. 

25 A. 8. 8., XXXIX, 273; Cf. Rit. Rom., tit. V, cap. 1, n. 21 (ed. 1925). 


The Rite of Administration 351 


simam’’ pertains in no way to the essence of the form. Nugno *@ 
and Bellarmine *’ claim that the rest of the phrase, ‘‘per suam 
misericordiam,’’ is needed for validity, because thru these words 
the principal cause of the sacrament is explained. Coninck *8 
is inclined to favor this opinion; Roneaglia?? and Kenrick®° 
admit its probability, while Suarez *! hesitates to come to a 
decision. However, by far the more common and more probable 
opinion maintains that the whole phrase is altogether unneces- 
sary. The imploring of God’s mercy is implied sufficiently in 
the deprecative form of ‘‘Indulgeat.’’ Since the issuance of 
the approved form for cases of necessity, this more probable 
opinion has practically become a certainty. While it cannot be 
held conclusively that every word inserted by the Holy See in 
the short form is necessary, yet it is deducible that discarded 
words are not required for validity. As a consequence it can be 
safely taught that the whole phrase ‘‘per suam piissimam miseri- 
cordiam’’ does not pertain to the validity of the form. 

‘‘TIndulgeat tibi Dominus’’ is certainly essential. The sub- 
stitution of ‘‘pareat,’’ ‘‘remittat,’’ or even ‘‘sanet’’ for ‘‘in- 
dulgeat’’ does not interfere with the validity (as the Catechism 
of the Council of Trent notes, De Extr. Unct., n. 6). ‘*Tibi’’ 
is required to determine the subject in whose favor the ‘‘oratio 
fidei’’ is being said. ‘‘Dominus’’ and ‘‘Deus’’ are interchange- 
able in as far as the essence of the form is concerned, but 
either one must be said, else the form is nullified.* 

The word ‘‘Amen’’ at the end of the form is considered un- 
essential by every one. In the present rite it is to be said by 
the priest, but anciently it was in some rites a response made 
by the attendant or the sick man.*# 


26 In Addit. ad III p. D. Thom., tom. 2, q. 29, a. 9, concl. 4. 

27 De Sacramentis, ‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ lib. 1, ¢. 8, apud Opera Omnia, 
vol. III. 

28 De Sac. et Censur., disp. 19, De Ext. Unct., dub. 4. 

29 Univers. Theol. Mor., ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ q. 3. 

30 Th. M., III, De Ext. Unct., cap. unic., n. 4. 

31 Disp. 40, sect. 3, n. 14. 

32 Ofr. note 9 of this chapter. It is undoubetdly sinful to substitute 
‘<Deus’’? for ‘‘Dominus;’’ but the question here has only to do 
with the validity of the change. 

33 Vigourel, A Synthetical Manual of Liturgy, n. 169, footnote rap 

34 <*Ordo ad Inungendum Infirmum ex Rituali Augustano,’’ ed, 1587, 
apud Daniel, Codex Litcurgicus, vol. I, p. 318. 


B52 Extreme Unctwn 


The question of the necessity of mentioning each particular 
sense for validity was greatly controverted. Diana,** Pitigi- 
anus,2* Babenstuber,3? Tamburini** and Laymann *° hold that 
the expression of the sense anointed is certainly essential. 
D’Annibale,?? Bucceroni*! and Pesch * speak of this opinion 
as the more probable one. So strongly did its advocates propound 
it that even in cases of necessity (as will be seen later in our 
treatment of this canon), all authors required the mention of 
the senses in the general form. However, many grave theologians 
thought the mention of the senses to be unessential for validity. 
Among these were men such as Caramuel,** Gobat,** De Sainte- 
Beuve,*® Salmanticenses,** Billuart,4? AErtnys *8 and Elbel-Bier- 
baum.4® Their argument was based on the contention that no 
mention of the senses is found in the Greek form; that in the 
Latin form the effect was sufficiently signified by the other 
words of the form together with the actual unction of the 
sense; and that Confirmation’s unction, though it must be 
made on the forehead, does not have a form which mentions the 
place of anointing. This opinion has been raised to a certainty 
by the short form published in the decree of the Holy Office 
in 1906 and contained in the rubric of the Ritual.°° Not even 
a general reference to the senses is found in it. 

To omit anything which is of necessity for validity in the 
form, of course, nullifies the sacrament. If this is done de- 
liberately, a serious sin of sacrilege 1s committed. It is also 


85 Op. Coord., tom. II, tr. 4, de Ext. Unet., res. xv, n. 4. 

36 Comm. in lib. quart. Sent., tom. 2, dist. 23, qu. unic., art. 4, dub. 4. 

37 Ethica Supernatur., tr. 8, pars 6, disp. 7, a. 2, n. 12. 

88 Th. M., tom. II, lib. 6, De Ext. Unct., cap. 1, parag. 3, n. 2. 

39 Th. M., lib. 5, tr. 8, c. 3, in fine. 

40 Summ. Th. M., III, 415. 

41 Inst. Mor., Pars. II, vol. III, n. 865. 

42 Prael. Dog., VII, 532—Pesch does not agree with the opinion himself, 
but confesses it to be the more common opinion. 

43 Fund. Th. M., vol. III, Fundam. 68, Substantia Extremae-Unctronalis, 
p. 270. 

44 Moral., Tract. VIII, n. 800. 

45 De Ext. Unct., disp. IV, art. 3—apud Migne, Cursus Theol. Compl., 
vol, XXIV, co. 98. 

46 Cursus Theol. Mor., tr. 7, ¢. 2, n. 32. 

47 Summa S. Thom., ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ disp. unic., art. 3, pet. 1. 

68 Th. M., IT, 359. 

e007 Hoo ,, TEI, Ey VLE, ACOUL, ban ills EoD 

50 b-V, Cap, Lu 21; 





atin 


The Rite of Administration 353 


grievous to omit those portions of the form which are only 
probably unessential, though more probably essential. It is 
not allowed to abandon the more probable opinion in favor of a 
probable one in matters pertaining to the administration of 
the sacraments.°! 


This canon, however, goes further. It orders the unctions 
to be made with the words prescribed in the Ritual whether 
they be -ssential or unessential. Hence, it can be stated with 
Laymann °2 that not even a single word can be omitted ‘‘ sine 
scelere.’’? Grave deordination of the wording is, of course, 
seriously sinful, but lightness of matter is likewise admissible. 
The omission of the words ‘‘Sanctam,”’ ‘‘piissimam’’ and 
“Amen” is generally considered to be but venial.°2 Suarez,** 
Gobat > and Berengo®* thought that omission of ‘‘sanctam’’ 
was grave; but their opinion has little probability today. To 
omit ‘‘istam’’ is considered a serious sin, even by those who 
doubt its necessity for validity, as Suarez°’ and Ballerini-Pal- 
mieri.°® 

Theologians are divided on the eravity of the omission of 
the phrase ‘‘per suam plissimam misericordiam.’’ Mehmkuhl,”? 
Buceeroni,® Gobat,®! Diana,’ La Croix,®8 Berardi,®* Ver- 
meersch,® Kenrick °° and others proclaim the gravity of this 
omission. They do so, not on the ground that such a phrase 
is essential, but rather because it is a notable violation of an 


51 9. 0. 8S. Off. 2 Mar. 1679—Denziger-Bannwart, Ench., 0. 1151. 

52 Th. M., lib. V, tr. VIII, cap. TII, in fine. 

53 Cf. Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 418; Sebastiani, Summ. Tham, 
n. 509; Vermeersch, Th. M., III, 656, ad ILI; Bucceroni, Inst. Mor., 
pars IT, vol. II, n. 865; Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Th. M., vol. 9, 
Tract. X, de Sac., sect. 6, De Ext. Unct., n. 21; Berardi, Pram. Conf., 
II, n. 4997; &e. 

54 D. 40, s. 3, n. 13. 

55 Moral., Tr. VIII, n. 800. 

56 Enchiridion Parochorum, 0. 1138. 

57 D. 40, s. 3, n. 13. 

58 Opus Th. M., vol. V, tr. X, de Sac., sect. VI, de Ext. Unct., n. 21. 

59 Th. M., II, 719. 

60 L.c. 

61 Moral., n. 800. 

62 Op. Coord. tom. II, tr. 4, De Ext. Unct., res. 16 and 17. 

63 Th. M., lib. VI, Pars. 2, De Ext. Unct., n. 2097. 

64 Prax. Conf., II, n. 4997. 

65 Th. M., III, 654. 

66 Th, M., Ill, De Ext. Unct., cap. unic., n. 4. 





354 Extreme Unction 


ecclesiastical precept. Others, however, like Genicot-Salsmans,™ 
Arregui,®® Sebastiani ® and Ballerini-Palmieri,” hold this deor- 
dination in the form as slight. Of course, this is no sin at all 
when left out when the sacrament is given in case of necessity, 
for the short form does not contain this phrase. 


A similar controversy has arisen about the gravity of omit- 
ting the mention of the sense which is being anointed. Those 
who contend that the sin thus committed is grave are Konings,” 
Sebastiani,“2 D’Annibale,“3 Vermeersch,’* Ballerini-Palmieri,” 
La Croix,*® &. On the other hand some authors hold that 
the deliberate omission is, at least probably, nothing more than 
venial. Among these are Gobat,’? Genicot-Salsmans ‘8 and Ar- 
recui.’? 

Vermeersch ® ealls attention to a point that may have es- 
eaped many: ‘‘Qui sensum specialem non designaverit, nihil 
quidem omittit quod sacramento sit essentiale, sed sacramentum 
quasi totum simul administrare videtur. Quare qui plures sensus, 
nullum nominando, sed repetendo formam unxerit, videtur quasi 
pluries sacramentum iterare. Et si specialis sit efficacia ad 
extinguenda peccata quae per singulos sensus commissa sunt, 
infirmum illa peculiari utilitate privat.’? But this observation 
comes to naught when it is remembered that the Greeks anoint 
several times yet make no mention of the sense that is being _ 
anointed in their form. It can hardly be claimed that eacn 
unection constitutes a distinet sacrament in that rite. Further- 
more, the determination of the words to a specific sense can be 
done by the very act of anointing such an organ. Those who 
hold the theory of Kern *! have no trouble in overcoming this 


67 Inst. Th. M., II, 418. 

68 Summ. Th. M., n. 662. 

69 Summ. Th. M., n. 509. 

70 Opus Th. M., vol. V, Tract. X, Sect. VI, n. 21. 
t1 Th. Me, a. (15035. 

72 Summ. Th. M., n. 509. 

73 Summ. Th. M., III, n. 415—probabilius. 

74 Th. M., III, 654. 

7 Opus Th. M., l.e. 

18 OTROM,,* MD N Ag Datasheet Use tis Ree be 
77 Moral., n. 800. 

78 Inst. Th. M., II, 418. 

79 Summ. Th. M., n. 662. 

80 Th. M., ITI, 654. 

81 Tract, de Ext. Unct., P. 323-30. 


The Rite of Administration 359 


difficulty, for, according to Kern’s solution, it is the priest’s in- 
tention which determines whether the effect is to be produced 
by a single unction or by several anointings. 

To omit the phrase ‘‘quidquid deliquisti’’ is surely a mortal 
sin. It is held by most theologians to be essential, for otherwise, 
the signification of ‘‘indulgeat’’ 1s not sufficiently determined. 
As Seavini notes,®2 ‘‘indulgere’’ can have several other mean- 
ings, such as ‘‘obsequi,’’ ‘‘consentire,’’ ‘facile concedere,’’ 
‘“nlus aequo remittere.’’? Hence its deliberate omission seriously 
imperils the validity of the sacrament and entails the guilt of 
mortal sin for the perpetrator. 

Older authors considered the contingency of the inadvertent 
substitution of ‘‘dereliquisti’’ for ‘‘deliquisti.’’ Gobat,®* after 
treating the matter at some length, decides that the sacrament 
is to be repeated. By no stretch of symbolism or hyperbole 
ean ‘‘derelinquere’’ be made synonymous with ‘‘deliquisti.’’ The 
opinion of Gobat is accepted by others who have considered 
this case, such as Elbel-Bierbaum,** Clericatus,®> Kazenberger °° 
and LaCroix.8? As a consequence, when such a thing occurs, 
whether consciously or inadvertently, the sacrament should be 
absolutely repeated. Of course, the deliberate substitution of 
this word for the prescribed verb is undoubtedly a mortal sin. 

It is quite necessary that the form which corresponds to 
each sense be applied to that particular sense and no other. 
Hence, when anointing the eyes, it would vitiate the unction 
to implore the remission of sins committed thru the sense of 
hearing. Elbel-Bierbaum considers a case where the priest for- 
got to anoint the hands, and when anointing the feet used the 
form ‘‘quidquid per tactum,’’ &c.88 If the priest has not left 
the man, Elbel-Bierbaum demands that the unction of the hands 
be supplied, ‘‘quia juxta omnes dum fieri facile potest, sacra- 
menta debent rite et integre administrari.’’ If, however, he has 
left the sick man, this author thinks he need not return if it 


82 Th. M., III, 528; cf. Billuart, Summa 8. Thom., ‘‘ De Eat. Unct.,’’ diss. 
unic., a. III. 

83 Moral., tr. 8, n. 811. 

84 Th. M., III, Pars VIII, conf, [X, n. 210. 

85 Decisiones Sacramentales, ‘‘ De Ect. Unct.,’’ dec. 68, n. 19: 

86 Suppl. Theol. Sacr., ¢. 2, n. 72. 

87 Th. M., lib. VI, pars Il, De Ext. Unct., n. 2097. 

88 Th, M., III, Pars VIII, Conf. 1X, n. 205. 





356 Extreme Unction 


is difficult or liable to provoke scandal, except when the man has 
received no other sacrament. If the patient, however, 1s easy 
of access, the defect should be remedied. Since the promulgation 
of the new Code, it would seem that his return is hardly obliga- 
tory. Only one unction is required for validity, and further- 
more, the sense of touch is anointed by the unction of the feet 
as well as by that of the hands. 


B) Ordine. 

The second preseription of the canon demands the several 
unetions of the sacrament be performed in the order given by 
the Ritual.8® Accordingly the eyes are anointed first,°® and 
very fittingly too, for, as St. Ambrose says, they are the 
watchguards of the senses and the windows of the soul. Some 
ancient Rituals commenced the unctions with the anointment of 
the ears.°? In the Roman Ritual, however, the ears come in 
the second place, the nose next, then the lips, the hands and 
finally the feet. 

If the sense-organs are double, both are to be anointed, 
commencing with the organ on the right side of the sick man.” 
The nose, as shall be seen later, may receive either a single unc- 
tion on the tip, or an unction on each nostril. The mouth or 
lips are to be anointed once. | 

That any change in the order of these unctions does not 
affect the validity of the Sacrament is conceded by all. Hence, 
if the unctions cannot be commenced upon the eyes without 
grave inconvenience, it is certainly allowable to start the rite 
by applying tle oil to another sense. 

To change the prescribed order of unctions without such 
necessity is thought by some to be a serious sin, by others to 
be only venial. Kenrick,®4 St. Alphonsus ® and Sebastiani °° 


89° Tit. V.,, cap, 2,°n. 8-12. 

90 Rit. Rom., l.c., n. 8. 

91 Cf. Examer., |. 6, cap. 9—M. P. L., 14, 266. 

92 Cf. Ritual of Church of Soissons apud Martene, De Antig. Eccl. Kit., 
l. 1, « 7, a. 4, Ordo XIII; the Pontifical of Constantinople, apud 
Martene, l.c. Ordo XVII. 

93 Cf. De Herdt, Lit. Praw., ITI, 200. 

94 Th. M., Ill, De Ext. Unct., cap. unic., n. 5. 

95 Th. M., VI, 708. 

96 Summ. Th. M., n. 513. 


The Rite of Adminstration 357 


hold an inversion of the order of anoimtments to be seriously 
sinful. It is, they contend, a notable change, in the traditional 
usage of the Church. AErtnys *’ agrees with this opinion, but 
allows lightness of matter, as, e. g., when the order of the 
unction between only two senses is inverted. The great ma- 
jority of theologians do not coincide with this view.°® Such a 
change is only accidental, they claim, and consequently only 
slightly wrong, unless indeed, as Ballerini-Palmieri* wisely 
notes, such a thing is done out of contempt or with the inten- 
tion of starting a new rite. 


The complete omission of the unction of a sense is certainly 
a mortal sin; and there is hardly any dispute about the gravity 
of the omission of the anointment of one of the organs where 
the sense is double, and where both organs can be conveniently 
reached.1°° However, since the validity is affected in no way 
by the omission of the unction of one of the twin organs, a 
sufficient cause will permit the priest to be content with the 
unction of either one of the organs. Such a cause appears 
when the man cannot be easily turned, or when bandages cannot 
be removed from the organ without great inconvenience, &¢.1°? 


The prescription ordering the organ on the right of the 
sick man to be anointed first in these double-unctions is not 
eravely binding. It surely does not create any grave deordina- 
tion of procedure.t” 


C) Modo. 


The third and last requirement made by this canon is that 
the unctions be made in manner and fashion prescribed by the 
Ritual. This entails an examination into the procedure of ad- 
ministering the sacrament proper, and the unction of each par- 
ticular sense deserves a word of individual attention. Hence 


97 Th. M., II, 357. 

98 Cf, Suarez, disp. 40, s. 2, n. 9; Lehmkuhl, Th. M., II, 720; Noldin, 
De Sac., 435; Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., Il, 417; Vermeersch 
Th. M., III, 653; Ferreres, Comp. Th. M., TI, n. 835, quaer. 8; &c. 

99 Opus Th. M., vol. V, tr. X, sect. 6, n. 19. 

100 Cf. Vermeersch, Th. M., III, 653; AErtnys, Th. M. Il, 357, quaeres 2; 
Lehmkuhl, Th. M., II, 720. However, see Sebastiani, Summ. Th. M., 
n. 513. 

101 Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 417. 

102 Cf. Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 417; Noldin, De Sac., n, 435; 

Sebastiani, Summ. Th. M., n. 518. 





358 Extreme Unction 


the treatment of this question will follow the order of the 
rubrics of the Ritual. 
‘¢Deinde, intincto pollice in Oleo sancto, in modum crucis ungit 

infirmum in partibus hic subscriptis &c.’’ (Rit. Rom., tit. V., cap. 2, 

as) 

The vessel of oil should be held firmly by the priest in his 
left hand during the performance of the unctions, unless there 
be an acolyte present to hold it. Baruffaldo 1° advises the use 
of a purificator wrapped about the hand to absorb any oil that 
may be spilled. O’Kane?* notes, however, that there will be 
little need of such a precaution if the oil is soaked in cotton. 

The priest should dip his right thumb into the vessel, fore- 
ing the cotton to yield the oil upon the fleshy part and not upon 
the nail.!°° Then raising his thumb to the sick man he makes the 
unetions with oil gathered thereon. The nail should not be so 
long that the oil may get beneath it,'°® nor so sharp that it will 
serateh the patient. 

The rubric demands that the unction be made in the form 
of a eross. ‘‘Crucis signum adhibetur,’’ writes Baruffaldo,!°7 
‘‘in eunctis Sacramentis ministrantibus, quia cum ortum suum 
habeant a Christi sanguine in Cruce effuso, non melius exprimi 
potest eorum fons et origo.’’ 


The practice of making the unction in the form of a cross 
is very old. It is found in the ancient Liber Sacramentorum 
of St. Remigius of Rheims.1°> It existed also in the monasteries 
of Cluny, as the third book of Burchard tells us.!°° Similarly 
very many rituals in the collections of Martene !¥° and Lounoi 14 


103 Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., tom. I, tit. 28, n. 65. 

104 The Rubrics, n. 925. 

105 Cf. O’Kane, l.c., Baruffaldo, U.c. nn. 66-7; De Amicis, Caeremoniale 
Parochorum, n. 203, 10. 

106 Baruffaldo, op. cit., l.c., n. 67. 

107 L.c., n. 69. 

108 apud Launoi, Op. Omnia, tom. I, p. 489. 

109 apud Launoi, l.c., p. 493. 

110 Ordines I, III, IV, IX, X, XII, XV, XVI, XVIII, XIX, XXI, XXII 
XXVIT, XXIX, apud De Antiq. Eccl. Rit., lib. I, cap. vii, art. IV. 

111 Pontifical of Cambrai—apud Op. Omunia, t. I, p. 496; Manuscript from 
the Dominican Library of Paris—l. c., p. 498; Pontifical of Laon — 
l.c., p. 501; the Manuals of the Churches of Vienne (1500)—Le. 
p. pe Chalons-sur-Marne (1529)—1l<c., p. 511; and Amiens—l.c., 
p. : 


The Rite of Administration ope 


contain this prescription. Catalano? likewise found a similar 
rubrie in the Codex of Beauvais. 

The crosses are to be made with the thumb by drawing 
first a line downwards from the place anointed and then another 
line across it at right angles from left to right of the priest.18 
Not to make the unction in the form of a cross does not affect 
the validity, of course, and hence in a ease of necessity it need 
not hae careful attention. Outside of urgency, however, its 
neglect is a venial sin.™4 


Ad oculos. 


The right eye should be the first organ anointed, with the 
unction of the left eye following immediately afterwards before 
the form corresponding to the sense of sight has been com- 
pleted! It is advisable to distribute the words of the form 
- so that the first unetion will have been completed by the time 
‘“ynetionem’’ has been reached and the second unction before 
the form has been completed." The Roman Ritual has only 
one cross marked, although there are to be two unctions, each 
in the form of a cross.1** 

No special distribution of the words of the form is prescribed 
by the rubric in these double anointings of the same sense. 
Moreover, the cross found in the Ritual between the penultimate 
and ultimate syllables of ‘‘Unctionem”’ does not signify that 
the priest is there to pause, complete both unctions, and then. 
continue with the form. The anointing should be performed 
while the words are being said without any interruption.'’® 
With this in view, O’Kane '® recommends a slow recital of the 
form, so that there may be ample time to make both unctions. 

The eyes should be closed, if possible, and according to most 





112 Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 333. 

113 Cf, O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 829; DeHerdt, Lit. Prax., III, 200, 3; 
De Amicis, Caeremon. Paroch., 203, ad 10. 

114 Cf, Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., Il, 417; O’Kane, The Rubrics, 
n. 920. 

115 Rit. Rom., tit. V, cap. I, n. 18. 

116 O’Kane, The Rubrics, 0. 927. ; tba 

117 O’Kane (l.c.), notes that the Ritual of Liege has two crosses. St. 
Charles, likewise, marked two crosses in his ‘‘Ordo ad Ministrandum 
Sac. Ext. Unct.’?’—apud Acta Eccl. Mediol., t. I, p. 606, 

118 Cf. De Herdt, Lit. Praw., III, 200. 

119 The Rubrics, nu, 931. 


360 Extreme Unction 


authors, the unction should be made upon the eyelids.’*° Others 
like De Herdt 1%! and Falise 1"? direct that the unction should 
be on the eyebrows. They have the weight of ancient custom 
behind them. The Ritual of the Church of Cambrai,!** orders 
that the anointing be done ‘‘in superciliis juxta angulos ocu- 
lorum.’’ <A rubric of similar nature is found in the Pontifical of 
the Monastery of Gemmeticensis.‘*4 A double unction ‘‘in super- 
eiliis et subciliis juxta angulos oculorum’’ was commanded by 
the Ritual of the Monastery of St. Remigius of Rheims.!2> In 
practice, either opinion may be followed, for an unction in either 
place is equally valid.1°° However, if the eyes cannot be closed, 
or if the eyelids are too tender to anoint, the unctions can be 
made on the eyebrows or below the eyes. Bucceroni?*? and 
Seavini #28 recommend that in these cases the old rubrie of the 
Ritual of Cambrai be followed by anointing on the eyebrow 
‘‘Juxta angulos oculorum.’’ Van der Stappen,!*? directs the 
unetion to be made beneath the eyes. 


‘‘Minister vero, si est in Sacris, vel ipsemet Sacerdos, post 
quamlibet unctionem, tergat loca inuncta novo globulo bombacii, 
vel rei similis, eumque in vase mundo reponat, et ad ecclesiam postea 
deferat, comburat, cineresque projiciat in sacrarium.’’ (Rit. Rom., 
Tb V PLO eer Deas} 

When Extreme Unction is given in lands where the prescrip- 
tions of the Ritual are carried out adamussim, one or even sev- 
eral ministers accompany the priest on his mission to the sick 
room.18° In this country, however, and, as O’Kane notes,}*! in 
Ireland, custom has established that the priest goes on sick ealls 


120 Cfr. O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 927; Catalano, Rit. Rom., tom. I, p. 333; 
Van der Stappen, Sac. Lit., t. IV, q. 219; De Amicis, Caeremoniale 
Parochorum, n, 203, 14; Pighi-Ferrais, Liturgia Sacerdotalis, n. 555; 
Heuser, Parish Priest on Duty, n. 97; Scavini, Th. M., III, 529; &e. 

121 Lit. Prax. Ill, 201. 

122 Lit. Pract. Comp., sect. V, cap. V, n. 9. 

123 apud Martene, De Antiq. Eccl. Rit., 1. I, e. 7, a. 4, Ordo XVII. 

124 apud Martene, /.c., Ordo I. 

125 Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 489. 

126 Cfr. Wapelhorst, Comp. Sac. Lit., n. 290, 6; De Amicis, Caeremoniale 
Parochorum, n. 203, 14. 

127 Inst. Mor., p. II, vol. 3, n. 868. 

128 Th. M., III, n. 529. 

129 Sac. Lit., t. IV, gq. 219. 

180 Of) fit.) V, ¢.-2;-n. 2; 

131 The Rubrics, n. 928, 





The Rite of Administration 361 


unaccompanied by any acolytes, or other ministers. If neverthe- 
less there is a man in major orders assisting him in his ministra- 
tions, such a one should wipe off the unctions after the priest 
has anointed. This rubric is stricter than the practice of older 
days. A rubrie of the Ritual of Chalons-sur-Marne'*” reads: 
‘Hit debet esse aliqua persona ad detergendum dictas cruces 
cum stuppis, et in qualibet Cruce accipiat stuppas novas, can- 
delis accensis.’’ And later in the same Ritual: ‘‘Lavat sacer- 
dos, unctione peracta, manus suas cum sale et aqua. Similiter 
alle vel illa, qui, vel quae extersit cruces de stuppis, quae debent 
eustodiri et reservari inter duas scutellas ligneas, et reponi in 
quodam armariolo in Ecclesia, et de eisdem facere cineres pro 
die Cinerum, vel recondi in terra sancta.’’ It is evident that 
even a woman might have been employed for this purpose, al- 
though today practically all authors say that under no cireum- 
stances is a woman to act even in a minor capacity in the admin- 
istration of this sacrament.** 


A fresh pellet of cotton or similar substance should be used 
for each form. Hence where the sense is double, the same cotton 
is to be used for wiping off both anointments.1°* Thus the 
Council of Salernitano prescribed: ‘‘Kadem vero stuppa seu 
bombice singula loca non ungantur, sed in qualibet membrorum 
specie mutetur.’’ 1% 


The unction should be wiped off as soon as the form is com- 
pleted. In the double senses, therefore, both unctions should be 
made before the cotton is applied.}*° 


If there is any danger of one of these organs coming in 
contact with the bed clothes or with the pillow—and this is 
especially true in the case of the ear,—then it is a laudable 
practice to wipe off the first unction before the second anoint- 
ing is made.*7 The Ritual of Toulon incorporates this recom- 
mendation in its rubrics.?°° 





132 apud Martene, De Antig. Eccl. Rit., 1. I, c. 7, a. 4, Ord. XXVII. 

133 Cf. e. g. Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Th. M., vol. V, tr. X, sect. VI, n. 34. 

et hilo hOnM,,. Lit Vy cap: 2,)ni cl. 

185 Tit. 32, cap. 6, (anno 1579)—Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 333. 

186 O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 928; De Herdt, Lit. Prax., III, 200. 

137 Cf. O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 928; Falise, Liturg. Pract. Comp., pars. 
Tiesec. -¥, Cap: 053s 9.0p-.669. 

138 Dictionnaire des Ceremonies, Art. ‘‘Ext. Unct.,’’ n. 25. 


362 EHatreme Unction 


Cotton need not necessarily be used for wiping off the une- 
tions. The rubric allows the substitution of any ‘‘res similis.’’ 
Older rituals ofter prescribed flax or linen. The preparation 
of ‘‘linum aut stuppam’’ was ordered by the Ritual of Liege, 
edited in 1553,18° and the Ritual of Chalons-sur-Marne™?® and 
was permitted by the Council of Salernitano in the legislation 
just noted. 

When there is no minister present in Sacred Orders the 
priest shall wipe off the oil himself. After use, each pellet 
should be laid upon another plate or put into a little pocket or 
bag. Such a pocket is often found in the burse itself, but it 
should be well closed, so that the cotton will not touch the oil- 
stock.141. Baruffaldo 14% for this very reason insists upon the 
use of a separate bag or burse to carry home the cotton. Into 
this special burse (or into the pocket of the same burse) should 
also be placed the bread crumbs with which the priest washes 
his hands at the end of the anointings. 

The cotton is to be burned and the ashes thrown into the 
sacrarium. The Ritual of Chalons-sur-Marne permitted the 
ashes to be used on Ash Wednesday !*° but such 1s certainly not 
allowable now. According to the rubric the cotton should be 
burned at the Church. De Herdt 1** notes that in many places 
there is a custom sufficiently common to permit the burning 
of the cotton and bread at the sick man’s house. Heuser }*° 
acknowledges the lawfulness of this; but differs from De Herdt 
in regard to the disposition of the ashes. The former insists 
on the fulfillment of the rubrical prescription, whereas De Herdt 
thinks no further attention need to be paid to the matter after 
the cotton has been thrown into the fire. Wapelhorst 14° allows 
DeHerdt’s disposal of the cotton if it is inconvenient to bring 
it to the church. Pighi-Ferrias ‘** is more generous that De 


139 apud Martene, De Antiqg. Eccl. Rit., 1. I, c. 7, a. 4, Ordo XXVIII. 

140 apud Martene, l.c., Ordo XXVII. 

141 O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 928. 

142 Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., t. I, tit. 28, n. 76. 

143 Martene, De Antiq. Eccl. Rit., 1. I, c. 7, a. 4, Ordo X XVII. 

144 Lit. Prag., III, 204. 

145 The Parish Priest on Duty, p. 100. 

146 Comp. Sac. Lit., n. 290, paragr. 7. 

147 Liturgia Sacerdotalis, n. 556; ‘‘ Bombacium et quidquid ad abstersionem 
adhibitum fuerit, relinqui potest familiaribus infirmi, ut in ignem 
projiciant,’’ 


The Rite of Administration 363 


Herdt, for he permits the priest to leave to the family of the 
sick man the duty of throwing the bread and cotton into the fire. 
Berengo !48 also allows this. Consequently it may be done with- | 
out hesitation, if the priest is certain that the family will fulfill 
their charge. 


Ad aures. 


The Pontifical of Prudentius, Bishops of Troyes, and the 
Pontifical of Cambrai 24° order that the ears be anointed ‘‘dein- 
tus.’? An old Codex of the Church of Noyon °° contains a rub- 
rie which specifies the unction ‘‘ad aures, infra et supra.’’ Still 
different was the direction of the Codex Victorinus 1°! to make 
the crosses of oil ‘‘in aures intus et foris.’’ However, the uni- 
versal practice today is to anoint the ears on the lobes or 
lower extremities. 2 Baruffaldo'* gives as the reason the 
facility with which the oil can be wiped from the lobes in com- 
parison with the hollow of the ear. 


The distribution of the words here have no special regula- 
tions. They may be distributed m any way provided the two 
unctions be performed during their pronouncement. It is inter- 
esting to note that the Ritual of the Church of Soissons, edited 
in 1530, had a distinet form for each ealiuee 


Ad nares. 


The Pontifical of St. Prudentius of Troyes,’ the Pontifical 
of Cambrai ?°* and the Manual of the Church of Verdun a 
direct the unction to be made on the tip of the nose. The Ritual 
of St. Remigus of Rheims says the anointing should be done Bie) 
Prmitete et subtus. 22° ot. Charles in his ‘‘Instructiones’’ 





148 Enchiridion Parochorum, P. I, n. 114. 

149 Martene, De Antigq. Eccl. Rit., 1. L,.¢. 7, a2, Ordines Srl Sax Vi 

150 Martene, l.c., Ordo X. 

151 Martene, l.c., Ordo XIX. 

152 Cf. O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 930; Heuser, The Parish Priest, p. 98; 
Baruffaldo, Ad Rit. Kom. Comm., t. I, tit. 28, n. 78; Van de Stappen, 
Rion Lsl te LV; Gs 219, cc: 

153 Lc. 

154 apud Launoi, Op. Omnia, tom. I, p. 513. 

155 Martene, De Antiq. Eccl. Riteel. 1) tavy.ae4 Ordo LL 

156 Martene, l.c., Ordo XVI; also apud Launoi, Op. Omnia, tom. I, p. 497. 

157 apud Launoi, l.c., p. 524. 

158 apud Launoi, l.c., p. 489. 


364 Extreme Unction 


placed two crosses in the formula to be used for the nose, thus 
implying that a double unction was to be made.!°? 

Even today authors differ whether one or two unctions are to 
be made. Baruffaldo,!®° Falise,!°! Lehmkuhl,!® Bucceroni'® and 
Sebastiani 164 wish a double unction. O’Kane?® calls this the 
more common opinion; and in the Ritual of Toulon it is ex- 
pressly prescribed.’ 

On the other hand De Herdt !*7 and De Amicis 1° permit 
only one unction to be made.’ This single unction is placed at 
the juncture of both nostrils in the tip of the nose. 

On the other hand the double unction, of course, would be 
made by anointing each nostril on the side, or, as Baruffaldo 17° 
expresses it, ‘‘ad narices quae sunt nasi alae laterales.”’ 


As a consequence of this dispute many authors simply men- 
tion that a single or a double unction is permissible. The local 
eustom should be followed; and if there is no unity of custom, 
either manner of procedure is entirely licit. 


Ad os, compressis labvis. 

The differences in the forms of the ancient rituals are very 
interesting. The sense of taste received no mention in some. 
Thus the Pontificale Anglicanum!”? prescribed this form: ‘* Ungo 
labia ista consecrati olei medicamento, ut quicquid otiosa vel 
eriminosa peceati locutione, divina clementia miserante expietur 
hac unctione. Per Dom.’’ &. The identical words are found 


159 apud Acta Eccl. Mediol., pars. IV., ‘‘Instruct. Extr. Unct.,’’ paragr. 
‘©Qrdo Ministrandi’’—tom. I, p. 606. 

160 Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., tom. I, tit. 28, n. 79. 

161 Lit. Pract. Comp., sec. 5, cap. 5, n. 9, page 669. 

162 Th. M., II, 720 and footnote. 

163 Institut. Theol. Mor., pars II, vol. 3, n. 868. 

164 Th. M., n. 513, 

165 The Rubrics, n. 932. 

166 apud Dictionnaire des Ceremonies, Art. Shot NGh.. tee oak 

167 Lit. Prax., III, 201. 

168 Caer. Paroch., n. 203, n. 14. 

169 Cf. Bissus E., n. 244, paragr. 18. 

170 L.c., N. B. It is curious to note that the very reason that Baruffaldo 
gives (lc.) for,a double unction, namely, to prevent the provoca- 
tion of a sneeze, is the one of the reasons DeHerdt gives for a 
single unction. 

171 Cf. Wapelhorst, Comp. Sac. Lit., n. 290, 6; Pighi-Ferrais, Lit. Sacer- 
dotalis, n. 555; Heuser, The Parish Priest, p. 98; Van der Stappen, 
Sac. -TAt., th TV; 219. 

172 Martene, De Antig. Eccl. Rit., 1. I, ¢. 7, a. 4, Ordo I. 





nl 


The Rite. of Adminstration 365 


in the form of the Pontifical of Prudentius of Troyes,’* while 
five other rituals in Martene’s collection '“* contain no prayer 
for forgiveness of the sins of taste. On the other hand, in the 
Ritual of the Church of St. Mary Magdalen near Le Mans the 
form commemorates the sense of taste.!7> Two other forms are 
worthy of notice: that of the Church of Liege,!7® and that of 
the Ordo Romanus X.177 

The unction of the mouth is to be made with the mouth 
closed and should extend over both lips. If this is impossible, 
an unction on either lip will suffice. When the mouth is wide 
open in unconscious patients, the priest should not attempt to 
close it, for such a thing is likely to interfere with the breathing 
and harm the patient.17? If there is any danger of infection, 
as in eases of hydrophobia or mouth eancer, the unction can be 
made very carefully on any part of either lip, or an instrument 
may be used. Only one unction is to be made, even if but one 
lip is anointed. Van der Stappen'®® in this case recommends 
the upper lip or a place near the lips. 


Ad manus: 

The unction of the mouth is followed immediately by the 
unction of the hands. In this anointment a distinct difference 
of place is made between priests and others. ‘‘Manus vero,”’ 
reads the rubric !8! ‘‘quae reliquis infirmis interius ungi debent, 
Presbyteris exterius ungantur.”’ 

No Rituals in Martene’s collection which date back beyond 
the twelfth century prescribe this distinction. Thus the Ritual 
of Prudentius of Troyes simply instructs the unction of the 





173 Martene, l.c., Ordo II. 

174 Ordines XIX, XX, XXI, XXIII, XXV. 

175 Martene, l.c. Ordo XXVI. 

176 Martene, l.c. Ordo XXVIIT; ‘‘Per istam unctionem et suam piissimam 
miscricordiam indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti per gustum 
et illicitum sermonem. Amen.’’ 

177 apud Mabillonius, Muset Italict, tom. II, n. 33: ‘Per istam sanctam 
unctionem et suam piissimam misericordiam parcat tibi Dominus quic- 
quid linguae vel oris vitio deliquisti.’’ 

178 Cf. Vermeersch-Creusen, Epit., Il, 231; Van der Stappen (Sac. Lit., 
t. IV, q. 219), prefers the lower lip in this case. 

179 Baruffaldo, Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., tom. I, tit. 28, n.. 80.) Cfr.v also 
O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 934; DeHerdt, Lit. Praz., III, 204 & 80-1. 

180 L.c. 

181 Rit. Rom., tit. V, cap. 1, n. 17. 


366 Extreme Unction 
hands to be made ‘‘exterius.’82 A similar rubric is found in 
the Ritual of Cambrai.!®* Since the twelfth century very many 
rituals have made this distinction in the anointing of hands. 
Some of these directed a double unction of each hand—upon the 
palm and the back—for laics, while directing that priests should 
be anointed with a single unction only—on the back of the 
hands. Thus the Ritual of Chalons-sur-Marne (1529)'5* has 
the following rubric: ‘‘Item super manus et infra; si vero sit 
sacerdos, ungatur tantum-extra.’’ Similar rubrics are found in 
the Codex Floriacensis,® the Codex Domini Desmarais 18° and 
the Ritual of Amiens.187 

A larger number of Rituals, however, corresponded in their 
prescription to the present Roman Ritual. Thus those who 
were not priests. received a single unction on the palm of each 
hand, while men in priestly orders were anointed on the back 
of the hand.18§ 


Durandus in the ‘‘Rationale Divinorum Officioruwm’’!? 
speaks of the distinction made in favor of sacerdotal hands; and 
St. Charles twice stresses the mode of procedure in this unction 
in his Instructions, ‘‘De Extrema Unctione.’’!” 





An opinion no longer tenable was advanced by Paluda- 
nus!®! and Rubeus.!9? It is positively wrong, they taught, to 
anoint priests on the back of the hands. The sacerdotal char- 
acter bespeaks no impeccability as to sins of touch, and since 
the centre of touch is rather in the palms of the hands than in 
the back, priests as well as laymen should be anointed on the 
palm. There is no incongruity arising from the former unc- 


182 Martene, De Antiq. Eccl. Rit., lib. I, cap. 7, art. 4, Ordo IT. 

183 Martene, l.c., Ordo XVI. 

184 Martene, l.c., Ordo XXVII. 

185 Martene, l.c., Ordo XXI. 

186 Martene, l.c., Ordo XXIII. 

187 edited 1541—apud Launoi, Op. Omnia, tom. I, p. 578. 

188 Cf. Rituale Ecclesiae Aeduensis—apud Launoi, l.c., p. 576; The Rituals 
of Rotomagi, edited in 1544, 1586 and 1611—apud Launoi, Le.; 
Chartres, 1489 and 1544—apud Launoi, l.c., p. 577; Meaux, 1596— 
Launoi, l.c., p. 577; Orleans (1581)—Launoi, U.c.; Vannes (1596)— 
ee, le, p. 577; Rheims (1504, 1530 & 1585)—Launoi, l.c., 
p. 078. 

189 Lib. lL. ¢. 8, n. 25. 

190 Acta Eccl. Mediol., pars IV, tom. I, pp. 602-3 & 606. 

191 Comm. in L1b. IV Sent., dist. 23, q. 3, a. 3, concl. 5. 

192 Comm. in IV Sent., dist. 23. 








The Rite of Administration 367 


tion in ordination because there is no question of a sacerdotal 
anointing in this sacrament. Iti is simply the application of the 
oils to the physical sources of sin, i. e., the senses. 


Of course, such a view is no longer valid. The explicit 
regulation in the Church’s liturgy has made it obligatory to 
draw a distinction between the unction of the hands of priests 
and those of other sick people. Deacons and lower clerics do 
not receive the unction as priests, but bishops do.'”” 


The reason for the difference of procedure has not been 
officially declared, and liturgists are not in unison in regard to 
its explanation. St. Charles Borromeo,'”* Barbosa,’®” the Rit- 
ual of Bressanone,!®* Van der Stappen !7 and Vermeerseh-Creu- 
sen 198 ascribe it to the unseemliness of anointing the exact part 
of the hands that has already been anointed in ordination by a 
bishop. Baruffaldo 1% offers quite a different reason. Priestly 
dignity, he says, distinguishes the priest from other men. Con- 
sequently, a different unetion would serve to conjure up in the 
priest the consciousness of his superior dignity, and thus move 
him to a greater sorrow for his sins. The hands are the most 
becoming place to make this change of procedure in anointing. 
Hands, hallowed by the constant contact of the body of Christ, 
should never have been sullied. An unetion made upon them 
in a different place than upon the rest of men would eall the 
subject’s attention especially to the sins of his hands, which 
for him should be a cause of deeper sorrow and repentance.°” 
De Herdt 2° gives both reasons for the distinction. Those who 
hold the former reason may have trouble explaining away the 
new regulation which directs that the single unction in cases 


193 Cf. O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 934. 

194 **Instructiones de Ext. Unct.,’’? apud Acta Eccl. Mediol. pars. IV, tom. 
Tap. 002-3. 

195 De OF. et Pot. Parochi, pars II, cap. 22, n. 32. 

196 paragr. 8, apud Baruffaldo, Ad Rit. Rom., tom. I, tit. 27, n. 110. 

197 Sac. Lit., t. IV, q. 219. 

198 Hpit., II, 231. 

199 L.c., n. 118. 

200 Baruffaldo (l.c.) notes the rather impractical advice given by Molina, 
in his ‘‘Instructiones pro Sacerdotibus.’’? This worthy author was 
wont to say that the hands of priests were so venerable that they 
should be at all times gloved, lest they touch anything defiled. 

201 Lit. Praw., III, 201. 


368 Extreme Unction 


of emergency be put upon the forehead, which has been anointed 
by chrism by the Bishop in Confirmation. 


Ad Pedes: 

The final unction in the present discipline is that of the 
feet. The history of the unction affords us no definite idea of 
the part of the feet that should be anointed. As in the other 
unctions, the Rituals of the several Churches reveal wide vari- 
ances of practical procedure in anointing the feet. 


The Ritual of the Church of Chartres 2°? contains this very 
peculiar rubric: ‘‘Ungatur infirmus . .. sub plantis pedum in- 
ferius, si sit certus de morte; et si dubitetur de morte, fiat supra 
pedes.’? A double unction was directed to be made upon the 
soles and upon the insteps by Pontifical of Sens*°3 and the Codex 
Domini Desmarais2°4 A single unction ‘‘super pedes’’ was 
preseribed by the Rituals of Amiens”? and Chalons-sur- 
Marne, 2°° while St. Charles,?°? ordered the unction to be done 
‘‘in plantis.’’ 

As a result there is a difference of opinion among liturgists 
as to the proper place of anointment. Castaldus,*°* Baruffal- 
do,2 Billuart 24° and Dens 7! favor the instep as the more 
proper place. Thus reverence prompts Dens”! to give as the 
reason of his preference ‘‘ne sanctum oleum pedibus caleari 
videatur.’? On the contrary Catalano? and St. Alphonsus 
Liguori?! think that the soles of the feet are the proper places ' 
to be anointed, because it seems more conformable to the form, 
‘Cquidquid per gressum deliquisti.’’ 


202 edited 1489, 1544 & 1604—apud Launoi, Op. Omnia, tom. I, p. 577. 

203 Martene, De Antig. Eccl. Rit., lib. I, cap. 7, a. 4, Ordo XV. 

204 Martene, l.c., Ordo XXIII. 

205 Martene, l.c., Ordo XXIV. - 

206 Martene, l.c., Ordo XXVII. 

207 ‘‘Instructiones de Extr. Unct.,’? apud Acta Eccl. Mediol., pars. IV, 
tom. I, page 606. 

208 Lib.’ 2, 8.14, cc. 10, n..7, 

209 Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., tit. 28, n. 84. 

210 Summa S. Thom., De Ext. Unct., a. 2, Observanda 6. 

211 Tract. De Ext. Unct., N. 3, p. 23. 

212 £.¢. 

213 Rit. Rom., tom. I, p. 355. 

OE ee yt Se.” Be a ay Ae 





The Rite of Administration 369 


After years of dispute the question was put for a decision 
to the Holy See. On August 27, 1836, the Sacred Congregation 
of Rites 215 decided that nothing new was to be introduced. As 
a consequence each one should follow the custom of his particu- 
lar locality2#* If there is no custom established, a priest is free 
to follow either opinion. In his decision as to the place to 
anoint, it may be well for him to note that touching of the soles 
often causes a tickling sensation in the patient, which at times 
may be very distressing. An anointment on the instep will 
prevent any such inconvenience. 


Authors agree that if any difficulty is found in anointing 
the part of the foot demanded by the local custom, it is per- 
fectly permissible to anoint any other convenient part.?'? 


‘¢Si quis autem sit aliquo membro mutilatus, pars illa proxima 
inungatur, eadem verborum forma.’’ (Rit. Rom., tit. V, cap. 1, n. 19.) 
Occasionally a priest will be called to anoint a man who is 
lacking one or more of the sense organs that should be anointed. 
The mode of procedure in such a contingency has been settled 
by the Roman Ritual. Its prescription is in accordance with the 
common teaching of the Doctors of the School.”4* All of them 
held, that even if the member had been permanently mutilated 
since birth, an unction was beneficial, because, as St. Thomas 
described,2!® ‘‘quamvis non habeant membra, habent tamen po- 
tentias animae quae illis membriy debentur, saltem in radice, et 
interius peccare possunt per ea quae ad illas partes pertinent, 
quamvis non exterius.’’ 





Henee, when a member is obtruneated or lacking in any way, 
the nearest part to it is to be anointed. De Herdt thinks that 
this is also to be done when the member is bandaged or covered 





215 Rhedonen., ad 1—D. A., n. 2743; ‘‘ Anne, ultra pedum pars superior, 
inferior quoque ungenda sit in Sacramento Extremae Unctionis? R. 
Nihil innovetur.’’ 

216 Cf, Vermeersch-Creusen, Epit., 11, 231. 

217 Cf. O’Kane, The Rubrics, n, 936. 

218 Cf. St. Thomas, Comm. In IV Lib. Sent., ad dist. 23 libri quarti, q. 2, 
a. 3, quaestiune. 3; St. Bonaventure, Comm. in Lib. IV Sent., dist. 23 
libri quarti, a. 2, quaest. 3, conel., paragr. 4, n. 4; Diana, Op. Coord., 
tom. II, tr. III, res. 48; Naldus, Summa, verb. ‘‘Mutus,’’ n. 3 & 
verb; ‘‘ Eat. Unct.,?* n. 8. 

219 Lc. 


370 Extreme Unction 


so that it cannot be touched.22° This would be of especial value 
in hospitals, and in accidents where a man’s hands or feet may 
be pinned under fallen walls, &c. 


A quite different predicament would occur if the man were 
found to have redundant members, as for example, three hands 
or three feet. In this case Baruffaldo 7? decides that those 
organs are to be anointed which are collocated in the natural 
<itus of the body, so that, ‘‘dempto membro superfluo,’’ the body 
ean be said to be complete and well organized. O’Kane *** and 
De Herdt 228 allow the suggestion of Baruffaldo, and also assert 
as an alternative the lawfulness of anointing the members most 
jn use in such people. The method of procedure when a person 
has been blind, deaf or dumb since birth was much discussed by 
the older theologians. The Ritual of Paris *** contained the 
rubric: ‘‘In infirmis ab ortu caecis vel surdis nulla fit oculorum 
auriumve unctio nullaque his sensibus respondens forma pro- 
nuntiatur.’’? Natalis Alexander 2*° agrees with this disposition 
of the question and notes that those who have been mute from 
birth may be anointed on the lips, but the words “‘et locutionem’’ 
must be omitted: from the form. La Croix’?® places in the class 
of those perpetually insane, and hence incapable of receiving 
Extreme Unction, all persons who have had the misfortune of 
being deaf, dumb and blind since birth. When, however, the 
three afflictions are not simultaneously present in the same in- 
dividual, he allows his admissibility to this sacrament.*** Most 
of the theologians and liturgists realized that men blind or deaf 
or mute since birth could easily sin through inordinate desires 
for the possession of such powers. Accordingly they directed 
that these organs were to be anointed in such men just as in 


220 Prax. Lit., IIIT, 200, 7. 

Ad Rit. Rom. Cemm., tom. I, tit. 27, n. 119. 

The Rubrics, n. 893. 

Lit. Praz., III, 200, 7. 

apud Dens, Theol. Mechlinensis, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ N. 4, page 27. 

Th. D. et M., lib. 2, (‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ ¢. V, reg. 7. 

Th, M., Lib. VI, p. TI, n. 1875, 

Op. cit., lib. VI, pars. II, n. 2084. 

A alg aah ils de Ext. Unct.,’’ Acta Eccl. Mediol., pars IV, tom. lI, 
p- 604. 





ts 


© 
to 


ist) 


ou 


fon) 


NS Wet oh) «6hUwNS UCN 
re 


~I 


Boe Rel ROY ohOie BS to 


to 
[e.2) 


The Rite of Adminstration Str 


those who actually had the use of them. St. Charles says ?%8 
‘‘Caecis, surdis, mutis, paralyticis, quamvis eo sensu, vel videndi 
vel loquendi vel ambulandi, semper caruerint, [Extrema Unc- 
tio] praebebitur; peccare enim potuerunt per internas poten- 
tias, quibus ea membra respondent.’’ Catalano, 7° Diana,?*° 
St. Thomas,?#! St. Bonaventure,?*? St. Alphonsus 74% and Salman- 
ticenses 234 all insist on the unction of these organs though never 
used from birth. 


The latter opinion has become universally accepted today. 
All recent liturgists instruct that the unction of such senses be 
done, on their proper organs if they are present, and if not, on 
the nearest places.2?5 Vermeersch-Creusen *%° notes that if one 
of the members of a twin sense is altogether missing, (e. g., an 
arm cut off at the shoulder) it is quite sufficient to anoint the re- 
maining organ. If the sense has not two organs, or if both 
organs are completely obtruncated, the nearest place is to be 
anointed, salva sen.per modestia. 


TI. MopE or ANOINTING IN CASE OF NECESSITY. 


In casu autem necessitatis sufficit wnica unctio in uno sensu 
sew rectius in fronte cum praescripta forma breviore, 
salva obligat one singulas unctiones supplendi, cessante 
periculo. 


The ordinary rite of administration of Extreme Unction 
is somewhat elaborate and requires not a little time to perform 
it. Yet it often occurs that the priest reaches a person so shortly 
before death that it is quite impossible to fulfill this elaborate 
ceremonial. From the times of the Scholastics this question of 
giving the sick man the benefit of the sacrament without im- 
perilling its validity has beset theologians. 


229 Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 320. 

230 Op. Coord., tom. II, tr. ITI, res. 48. 

231 Suppl., q. 32, a. 7. 

232 Comm. in Lib. IV Sent., dist. 23 libri quarti, a. 2, q. 2, concl., paragr. 
4, n. 4. 

233 Th. M., VI, 732, 3. 

234 Cursus Th. M., tr. 7, ¢. 2, p. 3, n. 23 et 24. 

235 Cf. De Herdt, Lit. Prax., III, 200, 7; O’Kane, The Rubrics, nu. 893; 
De Amicis, Caeremoniale Parochorum, n. 203, 12; Pighi-Ferrais, 
Liturgia Sacerdotalis, n. 556, &e. 

236 Fpit., II, 231. 


372: Extreme Unction 


The Scholastics held generally that the unction of the five 
senses was necessary. Their problem was to prove that the 
unction of the entire body was unessential; and they did not 
endeavor to investigate whether the unction of the five senses 
was absolutely required for the validity of the sacrament. The 
senses were viewed by them as the roots of sin, and therefore 
their anointment seemed so appropriate that they considered it 
as divinely ordained.23? Later theologians wholeheartedly sub- 
scribed to this opinion, giving it so bright a hue of external 
probability that it could not be ignored. Thus Bellarmine *°° de- 
clared that the opinion maintaining the validity of a single unc- 
tion was ‘‘singularis et ideo minus tuta.’’ Gregory of Valen- 
cia 239 and Gonet 24° joined their names to this array of authority 
on the question. 

To gather definitely the opinion of Suarez on this question 
is rather difficult. In one place 241 he seems to favor the opinion 
asserting the validity of a single unction, while later in his 
works242 he considers the question whether the unctions of 
five senses sufficiently express the effects of the sacrament. He 
decides that they do, because they are the roots of sin, and al- 
though there can be other sins of the intellect, yet ‘‘nihil est in 
intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu.’’ 

The Scholastics, no doubt, looked at the question from an 
‘‘q priori”? standpoint. When theologians who studied the posi- 
tive arguments in this question appeared, the opinion gained 
weight that only a single unction with a general form need be 
applied. Some of the pioneers were Sylvius,?43 Serarius, 8. J.,24# 


237 Cf. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 32, a. 5 et 6; St. Bonaventure, Comm. in 
lib. quart. Sent., dist. 23, a. 2, q. 3; D. Soto, Comm. in lib. quart. 
Sent., dist. 23, q. 2, a. 3, &e. 
238 De Eat. Unct., lib. unic., ¢. 10. 
239 Comm. Theol., tom. 4, disp. 4, q. 3, p. 2. 
240 Clypeus Theol. Thomist., tom. VI, De Ext. Unct., disp. I, a. 2, n. XXX. 
241 D. 40, sec. 3, n. 16: ‘¢Non videtur de essentia hujus sacramenti, ut in 
illis partibus unctio fiat; Jacobus enim solum dicit: ‘Ungentes eum,’ 
quod verbum sufficienter compleretur ungendo infirmum in corpore, 
in capite, &e.’’ 
2 D. 41, sect. 2, n. 13. 
3 In Suppl., q. 32, a. 6, quaest. 2. 
4 Tract. de Ext. Unct., cap. 7. 


The Rite of Administration 373 


Becanus,24> Estius,?4° Natalis Alexander,247 Juenin,*4* De 
Sainte-Beuve 249 and Tournely.2°° Their researches into the 
various Ordines of administration, ancient and contemporary, 
proved a useful corrective and saved them from asserting the 
sweeping conclusions of the Scholastics. 


Later theologians recognized the probability of both opin- 
ions, with the consequence that the liceity of a single unction 
was admitted when the prescribed mode of anointing could not 
be carried out. Thus the Pastoral of Mechlin, approved by the 
Academy of Louvain, and issued in 1589, announced: ‘‘In mor- 
bis contagiosis, et peste grassante, ut periculum vitetur, sufficit 
inungi sensus organum magis ad unctionem expositum ac detec- 
tum, dicendo: ‘‘ Per istam sanctam unctionem, et piissimam suam 
misericordiam indulgeat tibi Deus quicquid per visum, auditum, 
ordoratum, gustum et tactum.’’’*°? The Apostolic Nuncio to 
Belgium and Germany, Octavius Frangipano, extended this 
shortly afterwards to the diocese of Cologne 252 and the Man- 
uals of the Churches of Cambrai and Arras approved the very 
same procedure.?*? Tournely?* cites the Ritual of Paris which 
contained the following rubric: ‘‘Si non possit super infirmum 
fieri, nisi unica unctio, ungatur oculus vel aliud sensuum or- 
ganum, et ceteris precibus praetermissis, dicatur: ‘Per istam 
sacri Olei Unctionem, et suam pilsimam misericordiam, indul- 
geat tibi Deus quidquid peceasti per sensus.’ ”’ Launoi 2°° 
points out a similar rubric in the Ritual of Chalons-sur-Marne, 
edited in 1605. 


245 Summ. Theol. de Sac. in Specie, ¢. 27, q. 7. 

246 Comm. in lib. quartum Sent., dist. 23, paragr., 14, tom. 4, page 295-6. 
247 Th. D. et M., tom. I, lib. 2, ¢. 5, reg. 6. 

248 De Sac. in Genere et in Specie, diss. 7, q. 3, cap. 2, conel. 2 & 3. 


249 Tract. de Ext. Unct., disp. 3, a. 2; apud Migne, Curs. Theol. Comp., 
vol. XXIV, col. 98. 


250 Prael. Theol., tom. II, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ q. 2, a 2 in fine. 
251 apud Natalis Alexander, Th. D. et M., tom. I, lib. 2, ¢. 5, reg. 6. 
252 Cf. Bened. XIV, De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, ©. 3, un. 4. 

253 apud Natalis Alexander, l.c, 

254 Prael. Theol., t. II, De Ext. Unct., q. 2, a. 1. 

255 Op. Omnia, tom. I, p. 576. 


374 Extreme Unction 


It is to be noted that the third Council of Mechlin, held in 
1607, decreed that ‘‘infecti morbo contagioso instar aliorum ae- 
grotorum inungantur saltem in altero organo singulorum sen- 
suum.’’ When the legislation went to the Holy See for con- 
firmation, the Roman Correctors struck out this preseription,? 
thereby giving an inkling of the unwillingness of the Holy See 
to condemn an opinion which eventually it confirmed by in- 
serting it in its Code of Canon Law. 


Moved by a solicitude that the patient at the point of death 
should receive the sacrament with as much certitude as possible, 
theologians devised various expedients to be used in shortening 
the time required for anointing. Thus St. Alphonsus*>? urged 
the priest to hurry through the unction of the five senses under 
one general form. Some suggested the anointment of the five 
senses on the head (anointing the cheeks for the sense of touch), 
and the use of a general form. In regard to the form, St. Al- 
phonsus *°§ cautioned an explicit mention of the senses, rather 
than a general formula such as ‘‘quidquid per sensus deliquisti.”’ 
Likewise he recommended: the placing of the word ‘‘deliquistr”’ 
before the mention of the five senses, since it was probable that 
the mention of them was not essential, while that of ‘‘deliquisti’’ 
was. But with all their solicitude, the theologians never failed 
to recognize the probability of the opinion which maintained the 
sufficiency of a single unction; and in ease of absolute necessity 
they permitted it to be put in practice. 

The validity of the single unction when made in a ease of 
necessity, was generally considered to be doubtful, and conse- 
quently, if time permitted, the sacrament was to be conditionally 
repeated in the ordinary fashion. The expression of the con- 
dition in this instance was given as ‘‘Si nondum es hoe Sacra- 
mento refectus.’’25° No theologian dared to declare the condi- 
tional repetition unnecessary, for the opposite opinion holding 
only the validity of the five-fold unction was ‘‘antiquior, com- 
munior, et tutior, ideoque omnino sequenda.’’2® 





6 Cf. Dens, Theol. Mech., ‘‘Tract. De Ext. Unct.,’’ N. 4, p. 28. 
Tar hie eV STA), 

258 Th. M., VI, 710. 
9 Cf. Scavini, Th. M., ITI, n. 434; Heuser, The Parish Priest, p. 101; &c. 
0 D’Annibale, Summ. Th. M., n. 414. 


The Rite of Adminstration o10 


While theologians were propounding their arguments and 
conclusions, the Holy See stood silently by, waiting for the op- 
portune time to make a decision on the question. When asked 
in 1754 whether a single anointing would suffice, the Congrega- 
tion of the Holy Office avoided the question.°** It was not until 
April 25, 1906, that it declared in case of necessity a single 
form sufficed.2°2 This decree contained nothing explicit about 
the sufficiency of a single unction, although this 1s easily de- 
ducible from the single form. The new Code removes all ra- 
tional and irrational doubt by an express declaration to this ef- 
fect.76 


In casu autem necessttatis. 


In every case of necessity, no matter whence it arises, the 
shorter form of Extreme Unction can be employed. Necessity 
is surely present when a man’s expiration is feared before the 
longer rite might be completed. Similarly, when it is doubtful 
whether a man is alive or not, as contemplated by Canon 941, 
it is safe to employ this briefer mode of administration. 

Various other cases of necessity are propounded by authors. 
Vermeersch-Creusen 2° declares that necessity can arise from 
the peril of contagion. Accordingly when serious danger threat- 
ens the health of the priest if he should dally too long in the 
sick room, he may leave after a single unetion has been per- 
formed. In times of pestilence such danger is constantly pres- 
ent, and Extreme Unction may be imparted to all in this quicker 
fashion.2°° Another instanca would occur in the case where the 
sacrament has to be administered to a large number of sick 
people and it is feared that some may not receive the sacrament 





261 S. C. S. Off., Algeriae, 11 Jul. 1754—apud Coll. 8. C. P. F., n. 596, 
footnote. 

262 §. C. S. Off., apud Coll. 8. C. P. F., n. 2233; A. 8. S., XXXIX, 273. 

263 Ctr. Ephemer. Liturg., vol. XX, p. 451; Razon y Fé, vol. XVI, p. 236; 
II Monitore, vol. XIX, p. 231, &c. 

264 EF pit., II, 231. 

265 Cf. Alphonsus, Th. M., VI, 710; Clericatus, Decisiones Sacramentales, 
‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ dec. 66, n. 9; Benedict XIV, De Syn. Dioc., |. 13, 
e. 19, n.+d9. 


316 Extreme Uncition 


in good time, or perhaps not at all, if the longer formula is per- 
solved 266 in each case. In time of epidemics, or on the battle- 
field such instances must not be infrequent. Wapelhorst °° 
cites an extraordinary railroad accident as an example of this 
necessity. 


Other cases can be easily imagined. Thus, if a priest had 
but a limited time assigned to him by hospital authorities where- 
in he must perform all his ministrations, it may often be neces- 
sary to be content with but a single unction, especially when 
many! patients have to be visited and attended. A similar case 
of necessity would occur, if during an operation a man would 
suddenly fall into danger of death and the work of the sur- 
geons would be seriously, if not fatally, delayed, were they to 
suspend progress until the entire rite was performed. Thus, too, 
the brief formula may be employed when the patient is in danger 
of death from an internal cause so imminently that an operation 
is immediately urgent. 


Necessity will be at hand too, when scandal would arise 
from the employment of a lengthy formula. In maternity cases 
it is sometimes wise for a priest who must attend a woman in 
the throes of parturition to retire from the scene as soon as 
possible. Likewise the conditional anointment of a man who up 
until the last moment of consciousness refused the sacraments 7° 
may often have to be done very judiciously, and even secretly, 
with a single unction, in order to avoid any scandal to the by- 
standers. Those who feel justified in anointing non-Catholies 
conditionally in virtue of the probable opimion announced in the 
Commentary on Canon 940, may often have to resort to a secret 
unction. Lastly, the presence of a physical obstacle preventing 
access to the ordinary places of unction will suffice for the law- 
ful employment of the brief form.*®® 


lor) 
o 


Cf. Modo Practico, cap. ix—O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 900. 
Comp. Sac. Liturg., n. 292. 

Cf. supra, chap. vii, p. 241 sqq. 

69 Vermeersch-Creusen, Eptt., II, 231. 


> 
I 


Wo wih ORS 
on 
Go 





The Rite of Administration 377 


Sufficit unica unctio. 


For the first time in the legislation of the Church the sufii- 
ciency of a single unction has been explicitly declared. As noted 
before, the decree of the Holy Office in 1906 allowing a single 
form furnished a very rational basis for this deduction, as did 
also two decisions of the Holy Office since that time in regard to 
supplying the unctions.?7° But the precise declaration was not 
forthcoming until the promulgation of this Canon in the Code. 

A single unction is sufficient, the Canon declares. Conse- 
quently, a single unction is valid; and in case of necessity 1s 
also licit. The force of ‘‘unica’’ is noteworthy. It dispels any 
doubt that might arise as to the number of unctions necessary if 
the organs of the sense anointed were double. Now it is clear 
that an unction on either of the two organs is all that is re- 
quired. 


‘‘In wno sensu seu rectius in fronte.”’ 


No particular sense is specified to receive this single unction. 
It may be made on any of them with equal validity and lieeity. 
However the Code suggests that it be done upon the forehead, 
‘‘quia in capite sita est cogitationis sedes ac centrum nervorum 
sensuum.’’ 271 

‘‘Rectius’’ has the force of ‘‘consultius,’’ i. e., ““more prop- 
erly,’’ or ‘‘more becomingly.’’ It is nothing more than a coun- 
sel, arising from the fitness of anointing the seat of all the 
senses. Surely, however, the wish of the Church should be ac- 
ceded to unless some obstacle prevents it. Such an obstacle can 
be present physically, for example, when the man ’s head is en- 
tirely bandaged, when he is lying beneath an engine with only 
feet protruding, &c. In such contingencies the unction can be 
made on any organ that ean be reached. The canon specifies 
only the unction of a particular sense ; and since the sense of 
touch is diffused throughout the entire body, any place anointed 





270 §, C. 8. Off., 31 Jan. 1907; 9 Mar. 1917; Cf. A. A. S., ETE: 
271 Blat, Comm. Tezt., lib. 3, pars. I, n. 292. 


378 Extreme Unction 


can be said to be an unction of the sense of touch. Thus Tan- 
querey says that the unction can be made “‘in pectore aut scapu- 
diss se 

Moral obstacles may also prevent an unction on the head. 
Thus in the two instances given as cases of moral necessity, viz., 
the unction of one who refused the sacraments up until the 
moment of unconsciousness and the administration of this sac- 
rament to a dying non-Catholic, it was noted that it would 
often be necessary to avoid-scandal by imparting the sacrament 
secretly. Secrecy may be more insured by an unction on 
the hand rather than on the forehead. Thus, if a priest were 
cautiously to open his oil stocks in his pocket, dip his thumb 
therein, and afterwards touch one of the hands of the sick man, 
it would be enough. What would seem to the bystanders only a 
mark: of friendliness on the part of the priest might be for the 
sick man the means of his salvation. 


Finally, a word should be said about a place of unction 
in the case of a man beheaded. Since, as O’Malley 27° notes, it 
is always probable that such a man does not die at once, con- 
ditional administration of the sacrament can, and, at times, even 
must, be made in accordance with the prescription of Canon 
941. But where is the cross of oil to be placed in such a ease? 
It is very uncertain whether the soul is resident in the trunk or 
in the head. The only solution is to anoint both parts of the 
body once. The unction upon the head should be made upon 
the forehead, if feasible, whereas the unction of the trunk can 
be made upon the hand or any other convenient place. In the 
case where either the head or the trunk is not obtainable, it is 
clear that the priest should anoint the part of the body at 
hand. 


““Cum praescripta forma breviort.”’ 


The form prescribed is found in the latest edition of the 
Roman Ritual.?74 It is identical with that given in the decree 





22 eT et 4 GO: 

273 Ethics of Med. Homicide, p. 83. 

oA ay CAD Lei eek, 

275 A. 8.:8., XXXIX, 273; Coll, 8S. 0. Ps E., mn. 2223. 


The Rite of Adminstration 379 


of the Holy Office in 1906,?7° and reads thus: ‘‘Per istam sanc- 
tam unectionem indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti. 
‘Amen.”’ 

If the single unction is employed, this form must accompany 
it by virtue at least of the ecclesiastical precept. Hence any 
mention of the senses, or other variations, though not invalidat- 
ing, are prohibited. 


‘Salva obligatione singulas unctiones supplendi, cessante pert- 
culo.”’ 


Since the judgment of man in regard to the proximity of 
death is very fallacious, it is very often the case that the patient 
lives long enough after the single anointment that’ he would 
have survived even the administration of the longer rite of 
unction. Hence if the patient is still alive in such cases as these, 
the canon orders the omitted unctions to be supplied. 

Prior to the decision of the Holy Office in 1906, this had 
been demanded by practically all theologians. They looked on 
this second) ceremony as a surer confection of a sacrament that 
was but doubtfully administered before. Hence this second 
administration was always done conditionally, because of the 
probable validity of the prior rite. 

The decree of the Holy Office in 1906 caused the theological 
kettle to boil over. The force of the term ‘‘sufficit’’ in the de- 
cree was the matter of much discussion for a period of ten years 
at least. Very many theologians held that the sacrament was 
pronounced valid when conferred with this short form (and 
single unction), with the consequence that no further anoint- 
ings were to be done, even if the patient survived for a time. 
Proponents of this teaching were Noldin,?*° Lehmkuhl,*” Gen- 
nari,278 Micheletti,2"? and writers in the Ephemerides Liturgr- 
cae,289 Revue Theologique Francais,**! L’Ami du Clergé **? and 





276 De Sac., 452, edit. VII (1908). 

277 Th. M., II, 719, edit. XII (1914). 

278 Jl Monitore Eccl., XIX, 231-2. 

279 Summa Th. Past., p. 110. 

280 anno 1906, p. 451. 

281 anno 1906, p. 408. 

282 anno 1908, p. 13; anno 1911, p. 736; anno 1912, p. 640. 


380 Extreme Unction 


The Irish Ecclesiastical Record.2*3 Practically all of these men 
declared positively unlawful any further unction of the senses 
passed over in the short form. 

On the other hand some theologians allowed, though did 
not insist upon, the performance of the rite in the longer fash- 
ion after the single unction had been used. Thus Vermeersch 
wrote in the Periodica in 1911:78* ‘‘Quodsi peracta summaria 
ista unctione tempus superfuerit, consuetae singulorum sensuum 
unctiones sub longiore forma peragere non negleget [sacer- 
dos].”’ 

Similarly, Ferreres*®> held: ‘‘Sed si tempus post peractam 
hane unicam unctionem supersit, videntur fieri posse sensuum 
unctiones cum forma singulis propria ad pleniorem sacramenti 
significationem exprimendam.’’ Tanquerey **° agreed with these 
opinions: ‘‘Ad integritatem vero sacramenti eas [1i. e., unc- 
tiones in singulis sensibus] perficiendas esse sub conditione, 
quam alii aliter sentiant.’’ 

Modified and cautious statements like these did not betray 
the settled conviction of Slater 287 and the Redactor of the Acta 
Sanctae Sedis 288 on this matter. These men contended that 
there was no definite settlement of the question made by the 
Holy See. What the decree decided was the sufficiency of the 
words required for the form, leaving as much in doubt as ever 
the validity of confection with a single unction. Hence the en- 
tire rite was to be repeated conditionally upon a man who sur- 
vived for a sufficient length of time after receiving the sacrament 
thru a single unction. 

Father Slater’s arguments are interesting. In the first 
place, he draws an analogy from the sacrament of Penance. 


283 Cf. Query and argument by ‘‘Religiosus’’ and the reply of M. J. 
O’Donnell, Vol. VI, fifth series (1915), pp. 525-8; also article by 
M. J. O’Donnell, Vol. VII, fifth series (1916), pp. 28-43. 


284 vol. III, p. 242 (58). 
285 Comp. Th. M., II, 683, edit. quart. (1909). 
286 Brev. Syn. Th. M., nu. 1260, edit. 1911. 


287 Th. M., vol. II, p. 235, edit. 1908; also I. E. Record, vol. VI, fifth 
series, Dec. 1915, pp. 567-74. 


288 Comment. on the decree of the Holy Office, Apr. 25, 1906, in Acta 
S. S., XXXIX, 275-6. 





—— soe 


The Rite of Admimstration 381 


There is much dispute, he notes,"°? about the exact words es- 
sential for the form of absolution. Some think ‘‘ Ego te absol- 
vo’’ is sufficient while others claim that ‘‘absolvo a peccatis 
tuis’’ is required. Suppose then a bishop should ask the Holy 
See for a determination of what form should be used in case 
of necessity. In answer to this, let us presume that the Holy 
Office declares that ‘‘Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis’’ 1s quite 
sufficient (sufficit). Surely if a priest used this formula of 
absolution to a man in extreme danger who has not made a mani- 
fest confession, all that the priest knows is that the form was 
valid. He is still in ignorance in regard to the validity or in- 
validity of the reception of the sacrament—for this depends 
upon the placing of the matter as well as the form. Conse- 
quently the same thing must be argued in regard to the de- 
cision of the Holy Office about Extreme Unction. All the decree 
asserts is the sufficiency of the words of the form, without even 
insinuating the sufficiency of a single unction. 


This argument is certainly not without weight. It can be 
reasonably claimed that several unctions—and indeed the unc- 
tions of the five senses—might easily be made while this single 
form was being said, thus uniting, as the old theologians advised, 
all the anointments under a single formula. 


The other arguments advanced by Slater are not so happy. 
He claimed that, even if the decree of the Holy Office implied 
the use of a single unction, the question was not finally settled, 
for such decisions are neither infallible nor irrevocable. It is 
hardly edifying, to say the least, to find his contention based on 
the supposed falsity of a decision which represents the highest 
authority outside infallibility to which a Catholic can appeal. 
If not infallible, these decisions are certainly authoritative. 

Furthermore he advances an argument from authority, as- 
serting that Noldin, Ferreres, Vermeersch, Tanquerey and the 
Redactor of the Acta Sanctae Sedis (all as quoted above) agree 
with him. However, with the exception of the Redactor an ex- 
act identity of opinion cannot be claimed. Vermeersch, by using 
‘‘non negleget,’’ took little pains to emphasize his instructions, 
and his failure to adduce any reason makes his statement appear 


289 apud I. E. Record, l.c., p. 570. 


382 Extreme Unction 


all the more half-hearted. Ferreres and Tanquerey are in uni- 
son with Slater in regard to the practical thing to be done, but 
certainly not for the same reason. Slater looked upon the sacra- 
ment conferred with a single unction as only probably valid and 
he demanded the conditional repetition by the longer form, 
when possible, in order that the ‘‘tutior pars’’ would have been 
eared for even in sucha case. Ferreres said the subsequent unc- 
tions were to be made ‘‘ad pleniorem sacramentt significationem 
ceprimendam.’’ Moreover, the halting expression that he em- 
ploys, ‘‘videntur fieri posse,’ can hardly be taken as an indi- 
eation of stable conviction on one side or the other. Tanquerey 
taught that the unctions were to be made ‘‘ad integritatem sac- 
ramenti.’?’ Evidently he maintained the validity of the single 
unction; but viewed the additional anointings as completing the 
sacrament. It is strange that he ordered this ‘‘completion’’ to 
be made ‘‘sub conditione.’’ If the first sacrament were incom- 
plete, the ‘‘completion’’ should be made absolutely. 

The most peculiar procedure of all is Slater’s attempt to 
show that Noldin does not oppose him. Noldin ?9° wrote: ‘‘Si 
sacramentum in periculo mortis unica unctione collatum fuerit, 
postea cessante periculo, nihil repetendum vel supplendum 
est.’’ Slater 29! remarks on this passage: ‘‘Of course when the 
danger has ceased, when the sick person is no longer in danger of 
death, nothing should be repeated or supplied.’’ Apparently he 
interprets Noldin’s phrase ‘‘cessante periculo’’ to imply the 
passing of all danger. Yet within the very next paragraph he 
adopts a very different rendering of the identical phrase used by 
the Redactor of the Acta Sanctae Sedis in his comment on the 
decree. ‘‘Sed, cessante periculo,’’ wrote the Redactor,? “‘ ... 
sub conditione repetendae singulae unctiones in singulis sensi- 
bus, sub suis particularibus formis’’ &. No reason is assigned 
for these contrary interpretations of this very same phrase, with 
the result that one argument counterbalances the other, and ef- 
fects nothing. 

Argumentation such as this between theologians lasted until 
1917. One camp continued to hold the position that the first 


290 De Sac., 452, edit. VII (1908). 
291 J. E. Record, vol. VI, fifth series, Dec. 1915, p. 573. 
292 A. §. 8., XXXIX, 275-6. 





The Rite of Administration 383 


unection was but probably valid and that, consequently, a second 
and conditional administration was to be done as soon as pos- 
sible. The other phalanx of authority refused to recede from its 
contention that the validity of the first unction was so certain 
that even a conditional repetition was positively wrong. Both 
sides failed to take into consideration the possibility that, even 
if the single unction were valid, the separate anointings should 
be supplied when they have not already been employed. 

This omission is easily explainable. No other sacrament de- 
mands such a repetition of omitted rite. If one of the triple 
ablutions prescribed for solemn baptism is omitted, for example, 
it is seriously wrong to supply it later with a separate form. 
Secondly, liberal views, holding the subsequent application of 
omitted unctions to be altogether illicit, were widespread even 
in the Eternal City, where the vigilance of the Vatican promptly 
prohibits erroneous opinions on such important issues. 


At any rate, in 1917 both camps of theological thought were 
thoroughly surprised by a decision of the Holy See. The unc- 
tions, the decree announced, which were to be supplied accord- 
to a former decree, dated January 31, 1907, were to be done 
absolutely and not conditionally.?%* 

Theologians had known nothing of the decree of 1907, else 
the differences as to the mode of procedure after the application 
of a single unction would not have arisen. The decree itself 
was never published, and probably known to very few outside 
the members of the Congregation of the Holy Office. Cardinal 
Gennari, the Prefect of the Congregation of the Council, and 
in almost daily contact with the Cardinals of the Inquisition, 
held a diametrically opposite opinion.**4 Moreover, the edition 
of the Ritual in 1913, although, as the decree of approbation 
puts it, ‘‘novissime recognitum, auctum et diligenter revisum a 


208 A. A. S., IX, 178: 8. C. 8. Off., 9 Mar.’ 1I917—‘“An administrato 
Sacramento Extremae Unctionis in casu necessitatis unica Unctione 
in fronte adhibita, per verba ‘Per istam sanctam unctionem indul- 
geat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti. Amen,’ cessante periculo, 
unctiones, ad tenorem Decreti 31 Jan. 1907, supplendae, sub con- 
ditione adhibendae sint vel non? 

R., Negative ad lam partem; affirmative ad 2am.’’ 

294 Il Monitore Eccles., xix, p. 232: ‘‘Dunque se 1l’ammalato dura in 
vita dopo ]’unzione abbreviata, non devono ungersi gli alteri membri; 
ma debono solo supplersi le preghiere non recitate.’’ 


384 Extreme Unction 


Sacra Rituum Congregatione,’’ contains nothing more than the 
unabridged decree of 1906. 

In absence of the decree of 1907, theologians found them- 
selves in deep difficulty when trying to exegete the true meaning 
of the decree of 1917. One solution could be obtained by em- 
phasizing the phrase ‘‘sub conditione,’’ while another would re- 
sult from stressing ‘‘Adhibendae.’’ The former would yield the 
unlawfulness of the subsequent unctions; the latter would imply 
that the unctions were to be supplied absolutely. 

Theological minds were therefore in a quandary. The Irish 
Theological Quarterly*®® refused to make a decision. The Ameri- 
ean Ecclesiastical Review 29° reversed its interpretation within 
a few months, first holding that nothing was to be repeated and 
afterwards maintaining the absolute performance of the omitted 
unctions. In this confusion on the correspondents of the Ephe- 
merides Liturgicae sent to that publication the following query: 
‘Quid de novo decreto 8. Officii (die 9 Martii, 1917) de Sa- 
eramento Extremae Uncetionis in casu necessitatis? Multi periti 
apud nos non possunt interpretar! responsionem §. Officii, et 
nemo scit aliquid de decreto citato diei 31 J anuarii 1907.”’ 
Without stating the source of its information, this journal pub- 
lished the decree of 1907. Presumably it is authentic. As given 
by the periodical,?®’ the decree reads: ‘‘Meria v die januaril, 
1907, Suprema 8. Congregatio S. Officii a S.-M. Pio-PPa XS 
hujus resolutionis approbationem retulit: ‘SSmus D. N., ne in 
posterum dubium oriantur, ita reformari jussit decretum de die 
25 aprilis, 1906; ‘‘Sufficere formam ‘Per istam sanctam wune- 
tionem indulgeat tibi Dominus qudquid deliquisti. Amen.’ Si 
vero infirmus supervixerit, suppleantur singulae unctiones et 
orationes.’’’ ’’ 

The fact that this decree was not published had the effect 
of frustrating its purpose. It amended the decree of 1906 “ne 
in posterum dubium oriantur,’’ yet the unamended form was 
incorporated in the Ritual of 1918.°°° Why the Roman authori- 





— 


295 Vol. XII (1917), p. 274. 

296 Vol. LVI, p. 620; vol. LVII, pp. 196-8. 
297 Anno 31, num. 8, p. 437. 

gos Tit. V5 Cap. 4,.0. av. 





The Rite of Administration 8380 


ties did this is difficult to say. Without a knowledge of the rea- 
sons which prompted them to such a course, it would be im- 
prudent, if not impudent, to criticise their action. 

The promulgation of the Code shortly after the decision of 
1917 brought to an end a discussion which would have other- 
wise assumed great proportions. A single unction with a single 
form suffice, the Code says, but there must be a supply of the 
unctions omitted. 

None of the theories advanced before 1917 exactly hit the 
truth. The recommendation of Tanquerey would have been 
correct, had he omitted the words “‘sub conditione’’—which 
at best were a very illogical insertion on his part. Ferreres 
came very near the truth when he inclined to the belief that the 
subsequent unctions were to be done absolutely. All he announced 
was, however, only an optional supplying of these omitted 
anointings. But there is still a difference between what is law- 
ful and what is of obligation. Not only may the supplementary 
unctions be made, but they must be done, if there is time. 

Strictly speaking, the Code has wrought no change in the 
mode of procedure determined by the decisions of 1906, 1907 and 
1917. Practically, however, it has ended the disputing of theolo- 
gians which resulted from a lack of knowledge of the decree of 
1907. Thus all theological minds must change their views, 
while Rome continues in the steady tenor of its ways. 

Since the Code, the manner of action is clear. If the pa- 
tient continue to live after he has been anointed with the brief 
form, all the unctions prescribed by the longer rite are to be 
supplied. Every unction of the longer rite should be made, 
whether the first unction was made on the forehead or on a 
sense organ. The first unction is an anointment of the subject 
simpliciter, the second is an unction of the particular part of 
the individual. The first unction was made, not to obtain the 
particular graces resulting from the unction of an individual 
sense, but to receive the effect of the complete sacrament. Con- 
sequently, even if anointed before, the sense organ should re- 
ceive its proper unction (with its particular form) when the 
anointings are being supplied. 

The supplementary rite is to be done absolutely, in accord- 
ance with the decree of 1917. ‘‘Sapienter,’’ writes Vermeersch- 


386 Extreme Unction 


Creusen, 29 ‘‘respondit 8. C. 8. Officii, 9 Mar. 1917, unctiones 
istas supplendas esse absolute, non condicionate. Condicionata 
enim administratio priorem dubiam fuisse supponeret: quod ad- 
mitti nequit.’’ 

Immediately we are precipitated into another difficulty. Is 
the ‘‘supplying’’ a repetition of the sacrament or not? If it 1s, 
how can it be reconciled with the second paragraph of Canon 
940, forbidding readministration in the same danger of death? 
If it is not, what is the meaning and the effects of the ‘‘sup- 
plied’’ unctions? 


Various replies are possible. Taking for granted that the 
supplying of the unctions is really a second bestowal of the sac- 
rament upon the sick man, three theories can be advanced. They 
can be briefly outlined as follows: When a patient rallies, the 
danger of death in which he is then placed has changed from 
an ‘‘imminent’’ danger to a ‘‘normal’’ or ‘‘ordinary’’ one. 
Consequently this second sacrament is given in a new danger 
of death—and Canon 940 is not violated.3° 


This theory labors under some difficulties. The ‘‘ordinary’’ 
or ‘‘normal’’ danger is hardly a new and distinct peril. At most, 
it is a modified form, a partial recession, of the former jeopardy. 
Hence the principle of Canon 940 must be violated. Further- 
more, suppose the necessity which caused the use of the short 
form was due, not to a proximity of death, but to a moral 
urgency. Suppose, too, that the opportunity presents itself to 
confer the longer rite, yet in the meantime the patient has not 
rallied but has been sinking gradually toward the end. In 
such a case surely there is no new danger of death, yet just as 
surely the unctions must be supplied. The inadequacy of this 
theory becomes apparent. 


A second explanation fares better. It appeared in the Il 
Monitore Ecclesiastico*°! and has been adopted as an alterna- 
tive explanation by Sabetti-Barrett.3° 


299 Fpit., II, 231. 

300 Cf. I. E. Record, vol. XI, fifth series, p. 295; O’Kane, The Rubrics, 
n. 899. 

301 vol. XXIX, p. 166. 

302 Th. M., p. 799. 





The Rite of Administration 387 


The prescription of Canon 940, 2, applies only when the 
sacrament is conferred with the full rite. Consequently it is 
licit to administer the sacrament twice in every occasion where 
the brief form has been used, even if the patient be in the none 
danger of death. oT} precetto di non iterare l’estrema unzione, ’ 
wrote the I] Monitore, ‘‘vale quando si e conferita nella sua piena 
integrita, non gia quando si é dovuta ridurre al minimum neces- 
sario.’? This procedure then is an exception to Canon 940 made 
by the Code itself. 


This theory certainly escapes the difficulties of the first. 
There is only one thing against it—and that is the seemingly de- 
cisive character of the wording of Canon 940. Not the faintest 
hint of a conditional prohibition appears therein; there is no 
room made for an exception. 


Another explanation is mentioned as possible by Fr. O’Don- 
nell in The Irish Ecclesiastical Record.2°* The obligation of 
‘“supplying’’ the unctions arises only when the danger has 
ceased —‘‘cessante periculo.’’ This must be interpreted to mean 
after all peril has ceased, with the consequence that the adminis- 
tration is not repeated during the same danger. While this 
escapes the prohibition of paragraph 2 in Canon 940, it runs 
counter to the prescription of paragraph 1 of the very same 
canon. Incidit in Scyllam qui vult vitare Charybdin, A pa- 
tient out of danger altogether is no longer a valid subject of the 
sacrament. Any attempt to anoint at that time would certainly 
be inefficacious, to say nothing of being sacrilegious. 

Besides these theories which presuppose that the sacra- 
ment is twice conferred, there are two others which teach that 
the first unction is simply supplemented by the longer rite, so 
that the two unctions comprise one moral action. Thus far the 
two theories agree, but they differ widely in their explanation 
of the reason for ‘‘supplying’’ the unctions and the effects 
thereof. 

Ferreres 3° is a typical exponent of one of these theories. 
He teaches that the unctions of the second rite are required by 
the Church for the fuller expression of the signification of the 


303 vol. XI, Fifth series (1918), p. 295. 
304 Comp. Th. M., II, 838. 


388 Extreme Unction 


sacrament. In other words, they are nothing more than cere- 
monies, designed to make the subject realize in a better way 
the true effects of the sacrament. They have no results ‘‘ex 
opere operato.’’ They can be compared to the ceremony of the 
ordination Mass, where the bishop says to the ordinands: ‘‘Ac- 
cipite Spiritum Sanctum. Quorum remiseritis peccata, remit- 
tuntur eis,’’ &e. Since the candidates are already priests, they 
have already received the power of remitting sins. They receive 
nothing more by this supplementary ceremony. It is not sacra- 
mental in its nature, but merely explanatory of a sacramental 
effect previously received.2 Such is also the doctrine of Kern, 
and was accepted by the Ecclesiastical Review *°7 when Ferreres’ 
interpretation of the rite was called to its attention. Geni- 
cot 898 is evidently with this group, although his statement is 
none too positive. ‘‘Unctiones absolute supplendae sunt,’’ he 
writes, ‘‘saltem ad ritum consueto modo complendum.’’ .Lehm- 
kuhl 9° ean be included within this circle of authority. Ac- 
cording to him the first unction only has a sacramental effect ; 
the repeated unctions, however, stimulate the dispositions of the 
sick man and result in the production of a more complete effect 
of the sacrament. O’Kane?!® joins in this view, thus complet- 
ing a galaxy of authority that cannot be ignored. 

The other theory offers a far different explanation. Ac- 


cording to its proponents, the separate unctions constitute the 
integrity of the sacrament. The essential graces are conferred 
by the single unction; but the sacrament has also certain actual 
graces which are peculiar to it alone. These actual graces are 
produced in proportion to the fulness with which they are ex- 
pressed. Hence the supplementary unctions are commanded so 


305 Cf. Ferreres, Razon y Fé, vol. XLVIII, pp. 85 & 236: ‘‘En la ordi- 
nacién sacerdotal, cuando el Obispo, concuida la Misa, dice a los 
ordenandos: ‘Accipite,’ ... . &¢., no les confiere la potestad de 
absolver, sino que ésta la recibieron cuando los hizo sacerdotes, que 
fué antes de la Misa que acaban ellos de celebrar, consagrando 
juntamente con el Obispo. Aquellas palabras sirven para explicar 
major la potestad ya recibida en virtud del sacramento.’’ 

306 Tract. de Eat. Unct., p. 328. 

307 vol. LVII, p. 198. 

308 Inst. Th. M., IT, 417. 

809 Th. M., Il, 718, 8. 

810 The Rubrics, n. 899. 





ee ee el ee ee 


ee SS 


The Rite of Administration 389 


that the recipient will have the benefit of the minor sacramen- 
tal effects which result from the anointments of the particular 
senses. By these unctions the sacrament is perfected, not re- 
peated. From them its integrity results, not only its fuller 
significance. They are not mere ceremonies; they have a sac- 
ramental essence. ‘‘Sunt actiones vere sacramentales,’’ says 
Sabetti-Barrett,311 ‘‘non sunt sacramentale quid, nam ne ver- 
bum quidem in responso 8. Officii habetur de usu sacramentalis, 
nec de mutata natura actionis quae est materia ipsa sacramenti.”’ 
Thus Extreme Unction can be compared in this respect to the 
Eucharist. With the consumption of either species, the sacra- 
ment is fully received. When it is received under both species, 
the grace received from the first is increased, accidentally and in 
a minor degree, but none the less ‘‘ex opere operato.’’ In simi- 
lar fashion the effects occur in Extreme Unction. As Ver- 
meersch 312 puts it: ‘‘Novis tamen unctionibus significatio itera- 
tur, et novus titulus gratiae ponitur, sive gratiae ejusdem si di- 
spositio manserit eadem, sive amplioris si subjectum sit perfec- 
tius dispositum.”’ 


Those who favor this theory are likewise a formidable host. 
The principal names on its roster are those of Noldin,?'* Ver- 
meerseh,?!4 Tanquerey-Quevastre,?!> and Quinn.?!®  Sabetti- 
Barrett 17 gives it as an alternative to a theory noted before, 
which maintains the true repetition of the sacrament. In gen- 
eral, their conclusions on this point are traceable to their opin- 
ions of the unity of this sacrament. 


No matter what theory is accepted, the practical procedure 
is the same. If there is time and occasion to supplement the 
short form with individual unctions of the senses, it is binding 
upon the priest by virtue of this canon to do so. Not to comply 
would be a serious sin, for it not only violates an ecclesiastical 
precept in grave matter, but also deprives the subject of a grave 


StAeT he MM... 799: 

312 Th. M., III, 651. 

313 De Sac., 431. 

314 Th. M., III, 651. 

315 Brev. Syn. Th. M., n. 1260. 

316 Some Aspects of the Dogma of Extreme Unction, p. 80-2. 

Bt Th... p. 729. ¢ 


390 Extreme Unction 


thing due to him in justice. If the ceremonies in the baptismal 
rite, which are surely only sacramentals, must be supphed sub 
gravi, certainly these unctions, which are probably part of the 
sacrament, must constitute grave matter. A proportionate cause 
however will excuse from this obligation, just as in the case of 
the baptismal ceremonies. 


The duty of supplying the unctions rests in justice upon the 
pastor of the parish. Hence if another priest has anointed ex 
caritate with the short form, the ‘‘supplying’’ of the unctions 
can be left to the! pastor. It must be noted, however, that it is 
not lawful for any priest to use the short form except in case 
of necessity. But when this contingency does occur, the sup- 
plying of the unctions may be left to the ordinary minister of the 
sacrament, if he is at all obtainable. If the single unction 1s 
given because of the patient’s supposed proximity to death, it 
will be advisable to continue with the unctions immediately 
without informing the pastor. A delay may be fatal. If, on the 
other hand, the necessity was moral and not physical, it is bet- 
ter for the priest to notify the parish priest and leave things 
in his hands. 


If the patient was anointed with the brief form in one par- 
ish, and transported, by ambulance for example, to another, 
the pastor of the second parish is bound to complete the anoint- 
ings, if time and other circumstances permit. The duty of car- 
ing for the sick in his parish rests on the ‘‘parochus loci’’ and 
not upon the pastor of the sick person.*"® 


There is hardly any divergence of opinion on the exegesis 
of the words ‘‘cessante periculo.’’ They are interpreted to mean 
the recession of that urgency which forced the use of a single 
unction, but not to such an extent that the subject has passed 
beyond all danger of death. Thus Genicot *® writes: ‘‘Ces- 
sante wrgentia seu periculo.’’ Ferreres**° and Tanquerey-Que- 
vastre 321 consider as equivalent the phrase ‘‘Si tempus supe- 


318 Cf. canons 468, 1 and 938, 2. 

319 Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., Il, 417. 
320 Comp. Th. M., II, 838. 

$21 Brev. Syn. Th. M., 1260. 


Nie i, ~ a, pai) es 


The Rite of Administration 391 


rest.” WVermeersch 32? suggested that it would have been better, 
if the clause ‘‘non cessante periculo’’ had been used. Under no 
circumstances can it be taken, to mean the cessation of all dan- 
ger in the patient, for then he would no longer be ‘‘in mortis 
periculo ob inurmitatem.”’ 


There is a difference of opinion as to the amount of time 
that may lapse between the single unction and its supplemen- 
tary rite. Genicot,?23 in pursuance of the theory that the sup- 
plied unctions are merely ceremonial, contends that the obliga- 
tion of supplying them ceases after they would fail to signify 
what they were intended to express, viz., the full signification of 
the sacrament. Hence the lapse of a notable period of time 
(one hour, in the opinion of Genicot) would suffice to relieve 
a priest from this obligation. 

Vermeersch 324 admits this as a reasonable interpretation of 
the canon. He does not favor it, however. He inclines toward 
the belief that the unctions may be supplied at any time within 
the duration of the identical danger of death. Since these unc- 
tions are sacramental in character (as he alleges with Noldin), 
their execution is never without some avail, no matter how 
ereat the interval between the single unction and this subse- 
quent rite. Furthermore, he notes, the specific efficacy which 
these individual unctions have because of the peculiar actual 
graces conferred by them is not to be discounted. ‘‘Quod si res 
ita se habent,’’ he concludes l.c., ‘‘suppletio omissae unctionis 
semper utilis esse potest, ac proin facienda videtur.”’ 

Either theory may be safely followed; and even though one 
odopts the view of Genicot in theory, it will not be wrong for 
him to use in practice the more generous view of Vermeersch. 
It may also be noted that, if there is still time remaining after 
the supplying of the unctions, the prayers of the Ritual, pre- 
seribed for recitation when conferring Extreme Unction ordi- 
narily, should be recited.**° 





$22 Th, M., III, 651, 
23 Inst. Th. M., II, 417. 
$2477. M., T11,-651. 


325 Cf. Rit. Rom., tit. V, c. 1, n. 12; Blat, Comm. Tezt., lib. III, p. I, 
n, 292. 


392 Extreme Unction 


The practical course to be followed can be summed up 
briefly : 

1. If there is no danger that the patient will die before 
the completion of the entire formula as found in the Rituale, 
all the rubrical prescriptions should be carried out accurately. 


2. If it is feared that the patient will die before the rive 
can be completed, yet not before the unction of the senses can 
be carried out, the priest will commence with the anointings.°*® 
Moral necessity may also compel this, for example, when there 
is a danger of contagion, or when the work of the surgeons upon 
the patient will not brook delay. If, however, the priest has the 
time and opportunity after anointing thus, he should say the 
prayers prescribed by the Ritual, first those which follow the 
unctions, and later, those which are preparatory to the anoint- 
ing, 

3. If through a mistake in judgment the longer rite of unc- 
tion has been commenced, only to have the patient seemingly 
die before its completion, at least the unctions remaining should 
be quickly performed conditionally, as has already been said in 
the treatment of Canon 941.877 It is even in this case quite law- 
ful to add the prayers of the Ritual.?*° 


4. If, due to physical obstacles or other causes, all the senses 
cannot be anointed, the priest shall proceed to anoint as many 
as he can. If afterwards he finds that the obstacle has been 
removed, he shall anoint the senses that he has omitted.*? The 
supposition here is that the priest can get in no way close to the 
organs which should receive the oil, as in the case where a man 's 
head is wholly bandaged, &¢. It is to be noted, however, that 
if he can get near to the place of unction, he may anoint the 
nearest part—provided, of course, it is reasonably contiguous to 
the sense organ prescribed for the unction. When this unction 
is done, nothing need be repeated. 


326 Rit. Rom., tit. V, cap. n. 12. 

327 Cf. supra, chap. vi, p. 221 sq. 

328 Of, I. E. Record, vol. XI, Fifth Series, p. 296 (art. by M. J. O’Donnell). 
329 Cf. Vermeersch-Creusen, Fpit. II, 231. 


The Rite of Administration 393 


5. When there is danger that the patient will succumb be- 
fore the completion of the longer form could be reached, it is 
permissible to anoint one organ of sense, or preferably the fore- 
head, pronouncing simultaneously the short form. This may 
also be done when the necessity is moral as well as physical. 
If the patient still lives after this brief rite, the unctions are 
to be supplied on the individual senses absolutely. 


6. Where there are many to be anointed and it is feared 
that some will die before the longer form can be performed in 
each ease, all should be anointed first with a single unction. 
Then the individual unctions should be supplied on those still 
alive, starting, naturally, with the subjects nearest to death. 
If some survive even after this, the prayers should be supplied 
as in the other cases, except that the plural number should be 
used instead of the singular.?*° 


7. Supplying of the unctions in cases where the brief for- 
mula has been used may be done as long as the identical danger 
of death continues. A: priest is not to be blamed, however, who 
feels himself freed from all obligation on this score after an 
hour has intervened without presenting an opportunity to pe.- 
form the subsequent rite. 


8. The right and the obligation of supplying the unctions 
belong exclusively to the pastor of the place where the man 
lies sick. 


9, When the unction is conditionally given by a single form, 
as e. g., in cases of apparent death, the unctions should not be 
supplied until the subject has given signs of life. Until that 
time there is no cessation of the urgency which prompted the 
short form.??} 


830 Rit. Rom., Tit. V, cap. I, n. 22. 
831 Amer. Eccl. Review, LXIX, p. 303. 


394 Extreme Unction 


Il. THe UNCTION oF THE REINS. 


Unctio renum semper omittatur. 


Besides five forms for the unctions of the senses and an- 
other for the anointing of the feet, the Roman Ritual contained 
until its revision in 1925 a seventh form for the anointing of 
the reins. It was identical with the other forms except, of 
course, for the specific mention of the sins of the flesh. Thus it 
read: ‘‘Per istam sanctam-unctionem et suam plissimam miseri- 
cordiam indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid per lwmborum delecta- 
tionem deliquisti. Amen.’’ This unction, the rubric told us, 
was to be performed only upon men; ‘‘sed renum unctio in 
mulieribus, honestatis causa, semper omittitur.’’*°2 Even in 
men the omission of this anointment was allowed when the sick 
man could not be conveniently moved.?33 Finally instructions 
were given that neither in men nor in women should any other 
part of the body be anointed in substitution for the unction of 
the reins.°*4 


Authors differed as to the exact: place of unction. Van der 
Stappen 335 mentions three different modes of making this 
anointment. The renal region is situated in the back between the 
lowest ribs and the hip or haunch bone (ossa coxalia). Hence 
a single unction made in the middle of the back upon the lumbar 
vertebrae (i e., the spinal column at the height at which the 
priest’s cincture encircles him) would suffice for the unction of 
both reins, and was consequently permissible. Likewise a double 
unction, one on the right and the other on the left of the spinal 
column in this region was permitted. Some authors taught that 
a single unction on either side of the spine sufficed. In these two 
latter cases the anointings could be made immediately by the 
side of the lumbar vertebrae, or in the middle of the renal re- 
ion on each side of the spine, or on the side of the body.??° 





332 Tit. V, cap. 1, n. 15, edit. 1913. 

333 Rit. Rom., l.c. 

334 Rit. Rom., l.c. 

335 Sac. Lit., tom. IV, Q. 219, n. 7. 

336 Cf. De Herdt, Prax. Lit., III, 201; Wapelhorst, Comp. Sac. Lit., n. 290, 
6; De Amicis, Caerem. Paroch., n. 203, 14 (g). 


The Rite of Administration 395 


The unction of the reins was hardly universal at any time. 
Of the thirty rituals given by Martene*** only two are found 
to contain a form for the reins.*’> The older, the Codex Regiae 
Bibliothecae (Francorum), dates back no further than the lat- 
ter part of the fourteenth century, while the other is the Am- 
brosian Ritual edited in 1645 by command of Caesar Montius, 
then archbishop of Milan. Launoi’s collection **° reveals a simi- 
lar omission in many ancient rituals and codices. | 


It did exist in many localities, however. The Sixth Pro- 
vineial Council of Benevento, held) in 1374, prescribed this unc- 
tion. These organs, the Council wrote,*#° ‘‘loco genitalium, 
quibus maxime in hominibus culpa contrahitur et perpetratur, 
et venialis et mortalis, inunguntur propter foeditatem membri, 
propter quam natura rationalis erubescit cogitare; et ideo absit 
quod Oleum Sanctum debeat ibi opponi.’’ 


Many rituals of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries ordered 
the unction of the reins for men and that of the umbilicus for 
women.*#! 


In view of this rather widespread practice, it is hard to 
account for the denunciations of Victorelli made by Baruffaldo**# 
and Catalano 343 because he recommended this procedure in re- 
gard to women.**# 


The Council of Salerno, celebrated in 1579, did not allow 
this unction to be made upon women, but permitted an unction 
upon, the reins of men, if the sickness did not prevent it.°*° If 
the unction of the reins could not be made, it was lawful to sub- 
stitute for it an unction of the breast. The appearance of the 


3837 De Aniiq. Eccl. Rit., lib. I, cap. 7, a. 4. 

338 Ordines XXIV and XXV. 

339 Ov. Omnia, t. I, p. 574 sqq. 

340 Tit. 8, cap. 4—Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 336. 

341 Vis prescription is found in the following Rituals of Launoi’s coilec- 
tion (apud Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 574 sqq.): Coutances (1494), Uzés 
(1500), Lisieux (1505 & 1522), Paris (1504, 1542 & 1581), Clermont 
(1518 & 1525), Nimes (1533), Magalonesis (1533), Abrincensis 
(1539), Limoges (1555), Noyon (1560), Bordeaux (1561), Lucon 
(1584), Nantes (1592), Poitiers (1584), Maleacensis (1584), Vannes 
(ia06), Bayeux (1611). 

$42 Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., tom. I, tit. xxvii, n. 109. 

343 Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 319. 

344 Tract. de Sancto Ext. Unct. Sacram., p. 62, (edit. 1609). 

345 Tit. 32, de Sac. Ext. Unot., cap. 6—Catalano, Bit. Rom., t. I, p. 319. 


396 Extreme Unction 


Roman Ritual shortly afterwards corrected this regulation in 
regard to substituting one part of the body for another.** 

Gradually, however, the custom of anointing the reins fell 
into desuetude. Benedict XIV *47 witnesses to its omission in 
many places in his day. Van der Stappen *** states that it was 
never general in Belgium. France had many local rituals which 
omitted this custom, and some of these even prescribed the unc- 
tion of the breast instead.?49 In the Ritual published for the use 
of the English clergy,®°° the unction of the reins was not men- 
tioned. Kenrick®5! and the ‘‘Excerpta ex Rituali,’’ published 
at Baltimore in 1860, reveal the fact that the practice of anoint- 
ing the reins had never been in vogue in the United States. 

It is not without reluctance that the Holy See abandoned 
this rite. This is evidenced by a reply given to the Archbishop 
of Utrecht by the Sacred Congregation of Rites in 1858.>°? His 
Grace had asked permission of the Holy See to permit the omis- 
sion of this unction in his archdiocese. In answer the Sacred 
Congregation wrote: 


‘Quod vero attinet ad renum unctionem quam in admi- 
nistrando Sacramento extremae Unctionis nunquam in ista dioecesi 
Amplitudo Tua adhibitam fuisse testatur, et quam idcirco postulat 
ut in Rituali Romano omitti permittatur, visum est Sacrae Congre- 
gationi nullam prorsus, sive in hac sive in alia quacumque re, suppres- 
sionem vel immutationem in Rituali induci oportere, sed illud voluit 
integre et fideliter imprimi, prout a Paulo V editum et a Benedicto 
XIV recognitum et castigatum fuit. Quod si unctio renum inusitata 
istic hactenus fuit, declaravit S. Congregatio patienter se laturam 
si singularia istius Diocesis adjuncta impediant quominus illico et 
universim ad praxim unctio isthaee deducatur; insimul tamen ardentis- 
simum votum suum expressit, ut, curante Amplitudine Tua et 
docentibus parochis, paulatim et sensim sine sensu disponantur fideles 
ad istam quoque specialem unctionem in extremo agone recipiendam, 
juxta Ritualis Romani praescriptiones.’’ 


Since that time there has been a gradual leniency shown 


S40) Ey Tit, Vj cap... Ly nei. 

347 De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, ¢..3, n. 2. 

348 Sac. Lit., t. IV, Q. 220. 

349 Dictionnaire des Rites Sacres, art. ‘‘Eatréme Onct.:’’ Resume d’un 
grand de Rituels, par Beuvelet. 

350 Richardson, Derby, 1856. 

351 Th. M., Til, ‘‘de Hat. Unct.,’’ cap. unic., n. 5. 

852 Aug. 14, 1858—D. A., n. 3075: A. S. S., IIT, 612. 





; 
’ 
| 


The Rite of Administration 397 


by the Holy See. It had always been allowed to omit the unc- 
tion when there was any danger to the patient. Other conces- 
sions had been granted in unusual circumstances. For ex- 
ample, it was the custom in China that missionaries should per- 
form the unction of consumptives and others sick with lingering 
diseases in a public fashion in the church or chapel after Mass. 
Naturally the presence of so many people caused much embar- 
rassment to the patient and to the priest. Disturbances among 
the crowd itself were not infrequent, because of the finicky cus- 
toms of the locality.3°* Consequently, it was graciously granted 
that the omission of the unction of the reins was allowable when 
the sacrament was conferred ‘‘in coetu fidelium.’’ Later, the 
Holy See permitted the omission of the unction simply because 
of long-standing custom. Thus in 1897 Leo XIII authorized 
the extirpation of the unction in the diocese of Bruges for the 
selfsame reason that it had been denied to the Archbishop of 
Utrecht forty years before.** The path to a general prohibi- 
tion of the unction was paved by the concession of this in- 
dult. 

Under the new regulation it is not only lawful to omit the 
unction of the reins, but it is a positive sin not to omit it. It 
brings into sharp relief the Church’s power over individual 
unctions; and it is, at least to some extent, an argument against 
those who held that the separate unctions were divinely or- 
dained as the essence of the sacrament. Those who hold with 
Kern 2° that the sacrament has a unity of indivisability, where- 
in the intention of the minister determines the time at which 
the principal effect will be produced during the anointings, 
will see that the minister must not extend his intention to the 
seventh unction. At the very latest, he must intend that the 
effect will be produced after the unction of the feet. Those who 
hold with Quinn *57 will have to look upon this prohibition as 


353 ‘‘Quando autem pro renum unctione peragenda in viris laxantur et 
elevantur vestes, statim multi, maxime mulieres, rubore suffunduntur, 
et velociter aufugiunt propter gentis mores’’—S. C. P. F. (C. P. 
pro Sin.) 21 Sept., 1843—Sutchwen.—Collectanea, n. 968. 

854 Cf. Collationes Brugenses, II, 1897, pp. 601-603, 

355 I. E. Record, Fifth Series, vol. XI (1918), p. 289. 

356 Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 323-331; Cf. swpra, chap. I, s. VI, p. 

357 Some Aspects of the Dogma of Extreme Unction, pp. 74-82. 


398 Extreme Unction 


an exercise of the Church’s power to neglect a minor sacramen- 
tal effect for sufficient reasons. 

At any rate, to anoint the reins now is probably a grievous 
sin. It would resurrect a rite that the Holy See wishes to re- 
main dead. It constitutes a serious insertion into the sacramental 
rite, resulting in a direct violation of this canon and a grave de- 
ordination of the Ritual’s prescriptions. 


III. THe UNcTION OF THE FEET. 


Unctio pedum ex qualibet rationals causa omitti potest. 


The unction of the feet was rarely regarded as an essential 
unction. Nevertheless, it was widely practiced, and did not 
fall into desuetude like the unction of the loins. Whenever 
the Ritual called for the unction of five senses, the anointing 
of the feet generally followed. However, exceptions existed 
in some localities. Two of Martene’s Ordines *°* do not include 
the unetions of the feet, although that of the five senses is 
explicitly required. Evidently it was not done in particular 
localities at the time of St. Alphonsus, for he writes ‘‘Unctio 
vero pedum non est de necessitate sacramenti, ut communiter 
dicunt Pal. &¢. ...; unde dicunt in hae unctione pedum 
servandam esse consuetudinem Ecclesiarum.’’**® De Herdt 3°° 
seems to imply the same thing, when he says “‘Ubi Rituale 
[Romanum] est in usu, pedum unctio omitti nequeat.’’ 


Many difficulties have been encountered in carrying out 
this prescription of anointing the feet. Peculiar local condi- 
tions have given rise to situations wherein this unction could 
not be easily performed. Missionaries in China had a very 
difficult time in persuading women of that land to permit their 
feet to receive the oils. It was only after long and sedulous 
instruction that these people viewed the sacredness of the rite 


858 Ordo XI (Codex Regiae Bibliothecae) and Ordo XVIII (The Ponttfical 
of Constantinople)—De Antiq. Eccl. Rit., 1. 1, ¢. 7, a. 4. N. B. The 
former speaks of additional unctions upon the ‘‘membra con- 
venientia.’’ The feet may or may not be included. At any rate, 
unction of the feet is not specified in particular. The Pontifical of 
Constantinople is content with prescribing the anointing of the 
five senses. 

359 Th. M., VI, 710, 2. 

360 Lit. Praw., III, 200 ad 9. 


The Rite of Adminstration 399 


in such a light that they put aside their false modesty. The 
Synod of Sutchuen, held in 1803, announced that this instruction 
had been so successful that no missionary should leave out this 
lutary unction, even in the case of women recently converted.?! 
any murmuring or scandal was feared in a particular case, 
the Synod instructed the priest to enlighten the patient on the 
true meaning and internal sanctity of the rite and urge her to 
put away the barrier of false shame that was preventing her 
from the reception of these special graces. The bystanders were 
also to be taught the holiness of this action performed by a 
priest administering a sacrament so beneficial to the patient. 
When this instruction had been made, the sacrament was to be 
administered only to those who acquiesced. If, on the other 
hand, a danger might arise from scandal given to the infidels, 
the saerament was to be administered, but the unction of the 
foot should be omitted. Likewise the Ritual of Passau °® ex- 
empted from unction the feet of women in parturition or suf- 
fering from a flow of blood.*® 


—q— 


2 
A 
ig 
4 
1 


In England the omission of the unction of the feet was 
allowed when the patient was a woman in a public hospital or 
infirmary, and the priest feared scandal or comment. Such 
leave was granted explicitly by the English Ritual.°* 


Under the present law the unction can be omitted for any 
reasonable cause. It is a welcome innovation, for it will relieve 
many scruples in this regard. The omission, however, is not 
ad libitum; there must be at hand a proportionate reason. 


Pastoral prudence and hygienics will determine very often 
whether the unction should or should not be made. A priest 
need not be too strict in his judgment of the sufficiency of the 
cause. Numerous examples might be cited. If the patient is nm 
a ward of a hospital, and no screen about the bed; if the patient 
is a woman, and there is no one present to uncover the feet 
except the priest; if there is sufficient reason to think that the 


361 Cf. Collgctanea, n. 1718—footnote, p. 243, vol. EL.) , The deeree ‘of 
this synod was confirmed by the Sacred Congregation for the 
Propagation of the Faith on July 29, 1822. 

362 ¢. 8. 

363 Of, Elbel-Bierbaum, Th. M., III, Conf. IX, n. 194. 

364 Cf, Slater—Moral Theol. (third edit.). p. 234. 


400 Extreme Unction 


feet might not have been properly washed before the arrival 
of the priest; if the patient has shoes and stockings on at the 
time of unction, or if a woman has her stockings on while con- 
fined to bed—these are but a few of the many cases when the 
unctions of the feet may, and often should, be omitted. Blat*™ 
adds several more, viz. the displeasure of the patient at this 
unction, the nature of the disease, e. g., if the feet were gan- 
erenous, and even their uncleanness. Heuser 366 remarks: ‘‘The 
unction of the feet is usually omitted in all cases in which it 
would expose the patient to grave inconvenience or prove dan- 
eerous to the attendants in contagious disease by reason of the 
delay,’’ ete. Finally it may be remarked with O’Kane*®’ that 
if the local Ritual or the custom of the place allows the omission 
of this unction in every case, it may be followed. Custom is 
surely a reasonable cause. 


TV. Tuer Use or AN INSTRUMENT. 


Extra casum gravis necessitatis, unctiones ipsa mimstry manu 
nulloque adhibito instrumento fiant. 


Altho Extreme Unction—unlike Confirmation—does not 
strictly require the imposition of hands as part of its proximate 
matter, nevertheless it is strictly prescribed that the unction be 
formed by the personal contact of the hand of the minister with 
the sick person. The Code does not specifically state what por- 
tion of the hand is to be employed, but the Ritual °°8 orders the 
thumb to be employed for this purpose. It is generally con- 
ceded, however, that to use another finger is at most a venial 
sin; and any reasonable cause makes such a substitution law- 
Pee? . 

It was not always the case to use the hand immediately in 
anointing. Thus the Ritual of the Church of Liege*”? contained 


365 Comm. Teat., lib. III, p. I, n. 292. 

366 The Parish Priest, p. 103. 

367 The Rubrics, n. 936. 

368 Tit. V, cap. 2, n. 8. 

369 Cf. Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 417: Sebastiani, Summ. Th. M., 
n. 513. 

370 Martene, De Antiq. Eccl. Rit., lib. 1, cap. 7, a. 4, Ordo XXVIT. 





q 
{ 


The Rite of Adminstration 401 


the rubric: ‘‘Pollicem vel virgulam intingit in oleum, &c.’’ 
La Croix 37 states that many learned men of his day anointed 
with a small rod. Van der Stappen notes that up until the year 
1873, it was done in the Diocese of Mechlin, and that many oil- 
vessels were so narrow in diameter that it would be physically 
impossible to insert the thumb therein. Similarly custom had 
implanted itself in the places which requested decisions of the 
Holy See on this point.37" 


The new Code allows a substitution only in case of grave 
necessity. Custom does not justify the matter, as is evidenced 
by the replies of the Roman Congregation. In 1788 The Propa- 
‘ganda warned the Bishop of Pekin and the Vicar Apostolic of 
Chan-si not to permit the substitution of a ‘‘penicilla’’ for the 
hand in the administration of Extreme Unction.37* Three later 
decrees of the Congregation of the Rites demanded the extirpa- 
tion of this custom in various places, asserting that long-standing 
practice was not a sufficient cause for its continuance. A devia- 
tion from the prescribed way was permitted only in cases of 
necessity.374 | 

Almost all the instances of necessity can be placed under 
the heading : ‘‘where there is danger of infection or contagion.’’ 
Infection would result from direct contact with the skin of the 
patient; contagion might occur from the proximity of the 
priest to the sick man. Since, as noted before, the imposition 
of hands is not required in this sacrament, it is permissible to 
anoint with an instrument. One anoints when he uses a virgula 
to apply the oil, just as truly as he writes when he uses a pen 
to form the letter.?” 

Hence in every case of plague or pestilence it is entirely 
lawful to anoint thru the mediation of an instrument. It is 
permissible, too, in every case outside of the time of plague 


871 Th. M., lib. 6, pars 2, ‘‘de Ext. Unct.,’’ n. 2115. 

872 Sac. Lit., t. IV, Q. 218. 

373 §. C. P. F., 21 Jun. 1788, Coll. n. 596. 

374 Cf. S..R. C., Portus 8. Aloysiti—9 Maii, 1857 ad 2, D. A., n. 3051; 
Toletana—31 Aug. 1872 ad III et IV, D. A., n. 3276; Colimen.— 
12 Jul. 1901 ad VIII, D. A. 4077. 

375 Cf. Chapeauville, Tract. de Necessitate et Modo Ministrands Sacramenta 
tempore pestis, q. 39, quoted by Benedict XIV, De Syn. Dioe., 1. 
LLL ck. 


402 Extreme Unction 


where infection or contagion is reasonably feared. Thus in indi- 
vidual! eases of leprosy,?’® syphilis, highly infectious eczema or 
any other similar cases, such a mediate unction is allowed. The 
mouth may be anointed in this fashion when the patient has 
hydrophobia, or other disease where danger lurks in contact 
of the saliva. In such cases, however, it is quite as well to 
anoint some part near the mouth with the hand rather than 
take an instrument for this single unction.?” 


A case of physical necessity can be imagined where the 
use of the virgula does not arise from danger of infection or 
contagion. If the patient could only be reached by some small 
aperture thru which the hand could not be inserted, the instru- 
ment may be employed to reach the sick man. 


The virgula can be made out of practically any substance. 
Gold, silver, glass, ebony—any material suitable for use at all 
suffices. If nothing else is handy, a small twig will be satis- 
factory.378 A brush or even a little cotton can be employed. 
It will be advisable to wrap a bit of cotten tightly about the 
end of the stick before dipping it in the oil, for the cotton 
absorbs more oil and assures a better unction.?”® 


This cotton can be changed after each unction, thus pre- 
venting infection of the oil. If the cotton is not twisted about 
the end of the instrument, the priest should take care to wipe 
the instrument carefully with cotton after each unction before 
it is dipped again into the vessel of oil.°8° If wooden instru- 
ments are used they should be employed only for a single unction 
and burned immediately after the rite is completed.**! | It is 
highly recommended that a priest should have a separate oil 
stock for such contagious diseases.?*? 





376 Cf. Ferreres, Comp. Th. M., I, 836. 

377 Cf. O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 926. 

878 Augustine, 4 Commentary, IV, 408. 

379 Augustine, l.c. 

380 Cf. O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 296; Heuser, The Parish Pretest, p. 103; 
Sylvius, Addst. ad III p. S. Thomae, q. 32, a. 3; De Herdt, Lit. Praz., 
III, 207 ad iii. 

381 Cf. O’Kane, l.c. 

382 Cf, Heuser, The Partsh Priest, p. 103. 


The Rite of Administration 403 


To use an instrument outside of necessity is a grave sin, 
for it is a radical departure from the unity of procedure estab- 
lished by the Code. La Croix **? asserted the seriousness of 
the offense was ascribable to the fact that it was a grave deviation 
from the universal custom. This custom has now become the 
written law of the Church. 


It is to be remembered that, though such an instrument 
may be used, it is not of obligation. Many modern authors ask 
priests to scorn such a resource, not only because they thereby 
avoid scandal, but also because there is very little danger from 
the physical contact. The oil itself acts as a preservative, and 
there is no transfer of infectious germs. Capellman *** goes 
to great lengths to expostulate with priests who are tempted 
+o use an instrument when anointing. In the first place, he 
notes, infections are prevented thru the oil. Ulcers and other 
open sores upon the sense-organs can be avoided by anointing 
the proximate parts of the body. Moreover, the use of a “‘vir- 
gula’’ or ‘‘stylus’’ is often a source of scandal to the bystanders. 
‘‘Cireumstantes certe,’? he wrote, ‘‘neque id sine ratione, 
mirabuntur et offendentur eo, quod pastor animarum adeo 
pavidus ac timidus sit, quum eodem in periculo, v. g., a medico 
sine ullo timore infirmum iterum iterumque manu tangi et 
apprehendi videant. Quid vero de aegrotis fieret, si medicis 
etiam tantus contagionis timor inesset? Porro quid de ipsis 
medicis fieret, si tantum esset contagionis periculum? Patet, ita 
vulgo homines et interrogaturos et judicaturos esse.’’ As 4 
consequence Dr. Capellman advises a priest to use a separate 
piece of cotton for each unction. Thereby he avoids the scandal 
that would oceur from the use of a thin rod, and simultaneously 
protects the oil from an infection which might result from the 
successive insertion of the thumb into it. 


Many other precautions are enumerated by various authors 
for eases of contagious diseases. All unnecessary touching 
should be avoided; the priest should not stand between the 
patient and the fire; special clothing should be worn, 


a 


888 Th. M., lib. 6, pars 2, n. 2115. 
884 Medicina Past., p. 127. 


404 Extreme Unction 


if advised by the physician; and a judicious use of disin- 
fectants should be made. Trust and confidence should fill the 
priest in the performance of his duty. The Master did not 
shrink from the leper; other Christs should not flee from a 
similar situation. The sacramental grace of Holy Orders stimu- 
lates the soul of the true shepherd. It is only the hireling ‘‘qui 
videns lupum fugit.’ ’3°° 


There are two extremes to be avoided. Too many pains 
should not be taken in the employment of preventives to avoid 
infection. The more means that are used, the greater the fear 
of infection becomes and the danger increases.*°° Even pre- 
scinding from the element of the supernatural that must sur- 
round priests in such situations, the natural protections are 
quite sufficient to allay inordinate fears and scruples. 


Although ‘‘optimum remedium est administrare confidenter 
et intrepide’’ 387 a priest, on the other hand is very unwise in 
taking unnecessary risks. Foolhardiness is not to be confounded 
with intrepidity. Charity to one’s self exacts a reasonable care 
of one’s health—and charity to one’s neighbor requires that we 
do not imperil his life by a transfer of germs or in 
any other way. A priest has no right to expect himself to 
be welcome at the homes of other sick when he neglects all 
precautions at a previous attendance upon a person afflicted 
with a contagious disease. Indeed, in hospitals, if priests refuse 
or neglect to take sufficient means of disinfection after their 
visits to contagious wards, they need not be at all surprised 
at the unwillingness of hospital authorities to permit indiscrim- 
inate access to the other patients of the institution. Accord- 
ingly in every case he should use the means which they often 
prepare in all kindness for his safety—not in a meticulous 
fashion, as though he were full of terror, but thoroughly and 
conscientiously, as the rational procedure of one who must 
insure himself against being an agent in the transfer of deadly 
germs to others under his spiritual care. 


885 John, X, 12. 
886 De Herdt, Lit. Praw., III, 207 ad iii. 
$87 De Herdt, Lit. Praw., III, 207 ad iii. 


The Rite of Administration 405 


The happy medium is attained by those who do not spurn 
natural means or neglect preventive methods to protect their 
own health and the health of others, and yet who feel no fear 
or hesitation in attendance upon the most virulent case of con- 
tagious disease.?88 Such a priest never forgets the words of 
the Comforter: ‘‘Noli timere ... Meus es tu. Cum transieris 
per aquas, tecum ero et flumina non operient te; cum ambulaveris 
in igne, non combureris et flamma non ardebit in te.’’°9 


388 Cf, Micheletti, De Past. Animarum, nu. 417 (ce); Stang, Past. Th., p. 70. 
889 Isai., XLIII, 1-2. 





Bales i.0 Gi Reds Ee Day) 


SouRCES 


Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Romae, 1909-1926. 

Acta Ecclesiae Mediolanensis, (2 vols.), Mediolani, 1843. 

Acta et Decreta Sacrorum Conciliorum Recentiwm, (6 vols.), 
Friburgi, 1876. 

Acta Sanctae Sedis, (41 vols.), Romae, 1865-1906. 

Acta Synodi Roffensis Tertiae, Rochester, 1914. 

Baw, Summa Conciliorum, (2 vols.), Petavii, 1723. 

Benedicti XIV Bullarium, (13 vols.), Mechliniae, 1827. 

Bizzarri, Collectanea in Usum Secretariae 8S. C. Episcoporum et 
Regularium, Remae, 1885. 

Bullarti Romani Continuatio, (14 vols.), Prati, 1844. 

Bullarum, Diplomatum, et Privilegiorwm Sanctorum Romano- 
rum Pontificum Taurinensis Editio, (24 vols.), Augusta? 
Taurinorum, 1865. 

Caeremoniale Episcoporum, Benedicti Papae XIV Jussu Editum 
et Auctum, Mechliniae, 1867. 

Canones et Decreta Concilii Tridentini, Taurini, 1913. 

Codex Juris Canonict, Pii X Pontificis Maxim Jussu Digestus, 
Benedicto Papae XV Auctoritate Promulgatus, Romae, 1917. 

Codicis Juris Canonici Fontes, (vol. I-III) Romae, 1923-1925. 

Collectanea Sanctae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, (2 
vols.), Romae, 1907. 

Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis II, Decreta, Baltimorae, 1868. 

Corpus Juris Canonici, (Editio Lipsiensis Secunda), Lipsiae, 
1922 (Richter-Friedburg). 

Decreta Authentica Congregationis Sacrorum Ritwwm et In- 
structio Clementina ex Actis Ejusdem Collecta ab Alowsto 
Gardellini, in Usum Cleri Commodiorem Ordine Alphabeti- 
co Coneinnata Opera et Studio Wolfgangi Muhlbaver, (3 
vols. and 3 vols. suppl.), Monachii, 1863. 


[ 407 ] 


408 Bibliography 


Decreta Authentica Congregationis Sacrorum Rituuwm Ex Actis 
Ejusdem Collecta Ejusque Auctoritate Promulgata, sub Au- 
spiwus SS. Domim Nostri Leonis Papae XIII, (6 vols.), 
Romae, 1898-1911. 

Decreta Synodi Dioecesanae Kansanopolitanae Secundae, Atchi- 
son, 1912. 

DENZIGER-BANNWART, Enchiridion Symbolorum, Definitionum 
et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum, (edit. deci- 
mamquartam et quintam) Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1922. 

Harpuln, Jean, Conciliorum Collectio Regia Maxima, (12 vols.), 
Parisiis, 1715. 

HEFELE, Charles, Conciliengeschichte, (9 vols.), Freiburg, 1873- 
1890, 

Manst, Joannes, Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, Paris-Leip- 
sic, (51 vols.), 1759 sqq. 

Pontificale Romanum, Clementis VIII ac Urbani VIIL Jussu 
Editum et a Benedicto XIV Recognitum et Castigatum, 
Romae, 1890. 

fiatuale Romanum, Pauli V Pontificis Maximi Jussu Editum, a 
Benedicto XIV et a Pio X Castigatum et Auctum, Ratis- 
bonae et Romae, 1913. 

Rituale Romanum, Pauli V Pontificis Maximi Jussu Editum 
Aliorumque Pontificum Cura Recognitum atque Auctoritate 
Sanctissimi, D. N. Pit Papae XI Ad Normam Codicis Juris 
Canonici Accomodatum, Turonibus, 1925. 

Statuta Dioecesis Oklahomensis, Oklahomae (n. d.) 

Synodus Dioecesana Prima Habita in Ecclesia Cathedrali ad 8. 
Philumenae In Urbe Omaha, Philadelphiae, (n. d.) 


AUTHORITIES 


ABELLY, Louis, Medulla Theologica, (2 vols.), Parisiis, 1679. 

ApamI, J. G., The Principles of Pathology, Philadelphia and 
New York, 1908. 

AERTNYS, Josephus, C. SS. R., Theologia Moralis, (2 vols.), Tor- 
naci, 1898. 

A Lapipe, Cornelius, Commentarius in Epistolas Canonicas, 
Venetiis, 1717. 

ALBERTUS a Butsano (Know), Opera Omnia, Parisiis, 1872. 


Bibliography 409 


Aupertus Maenus, Opera Omnia, (88 vols.), Parisiis, 1890- 
1899. 

A Mepia Vinita (Mippueton), Richardus,—see Richard Middle- 
ton. 

Analecta Juris Pontificii, Romae et Parisiis, 1855-1891. 

Anrorng, Paulus Gabriel, Theologia Moralis Universa, (6 vols.}, 
Avenione, 1818. 

ANTONELLI, Joseph, Medicina Pastoralis in Usum Confessario- 
rum et Curiarum Ecclesiasticarum, (3 vols.), Romae, 1920. 

Arcuptus, De Consensu Ecclesiae Occidentalis et Orientalis In 
Septem, Sacramentorum Administratione, Lutetiae Par- 
siorum, 1672. 

ARHANGELSKIJ, Mihail, ‘‘Izslédovanije ob istericeskom razvitu 
Cinosoversenija Jeleosvjascenija ot ustanovlenija sego tain- 
stva do izdanija nynésnjago jego ,,Posledovanija,‘ s podrob- 
nym izjasnenijem sego poslédnjago,’’ S.—Peterburg, 1895. 

Arrecu, Antonius, Summarium Theologiae Moralis, Bilbao, 
1922. 

AvureEoLus, Commentarius in Textum Magistri, Romae, 1596- 
1605. 

BaBENSTUBER, Ludovicus, Ethica Supernaturalis Salisburgensis 
seu Cursus Theologiae Moralis, Augustae Vindelicorum, 
1718. 

BALLERINI-PALMIERI, Opus Theologicum Morale, (7 vols.), Prati, 
1893. 

Barsosa, Augustinus, Pastoralis Sollicitudims sivi De Officio et 
De Potestate Parochi Tripartita Descriptio, Lugduni, 1712. 

Bareiuiat, M., Droits et Dévoirs des Curés et des Vicaires Paro- 
issaiaux, Paris, 1919. 

Praelectiones Juris Canonici, (2 vols.), Parisiis, 1928. 

Baronius, Cesare, Annales Ecclesiastici, (37 vols.), Barri Dueis, 
1864-1883. 

BaRUFFALDO, Hieronymus, Ad Rituale Romanum Commenta- 
rium, (2 vols.), Florentiae, 1847. 

Becanus, Martinus, Summa Theologiae Scholasticae, Parisiis, 
1679. 

BELsAEv, A., ,,Jeleosvjascenije’ v ,,Pravoslavnoj Bogosiovskoj 
enciklopediji,‘ S.—Peterburg, 1904. 


410 Bibliography 


BELLARMINUS, Robertus, Opera Omnia, (8 vols.), Neapoli, 1872. 


BEeNeEpDIctTus XIV, De Synodo Dvioecesana, (2 vols.), Romae, 
1806. 
Institutiones Canonecae, (3 vols.), Romae, 1784. 
BERARDI, Almilius, De Parocho Compendium, Faventiae, 1887. 
Praxis Confessarvorum, (2 vols.), Bononiae, 1891. 
BERENGO, Joannes, Enchiridion Parochorum, Venetiis, 1877. 
Burti, Giovanni, Opus de Theologicis Disciplims, (10 vols.), 
Bassani, 1792. 
Briuuot, Ludovicus, De Ecclesiae Sacramentis Commentarius in 
Tertiam Partem S. Thomae, (2 vols.), Romae, 1897. 
Bruuvart, FE. Carolus, Summa Sancti Thomae, Parisiis (8 vols.), 
(merd:) 
BInTERIM, Anton J., Die Vorziiglichsten Denkwiirdigkeiten de 
Christ-Katholischen Kirche, Dusseldorf, 1816. 
Buat, Albertus, O. P., Commentartum Textus Codicis Juris 
Canonict, Romae, 1924. 
BoNAVENTURA, Sanctus, Breviloquum, Friburgi, 1881. 
Opera Omnia, (8 vols.),, Ad Claras Aquas, 1892-8. 
Born, J. B., L’Eaxtréme Onction, Bruges, 1923. 


Buccrroni, Januarius, 8. J., Casus Conscientie, (2 vols.), 
Romae, 1918. 
Institutiones Theologiae Moralis, (8 vols.), Romae, 
1915; 
CaBaAssutius, Joannes, Juris Canomci Theorva et Praxis, Lug- 
duni, 1687. 
CaBrou et LeCuere, Monumenta Ecclesiae Liturgica, (6 vols.), 
Parisiis, 1900-2. 
CAPELLMAN, C., Medicina Pastoralis, Aquisgrani, 1890. 
CAPPELLO, Felix, S. J., Tractatus Canomeco-Moralis De Sacra- 
mentis jucta Codicem Juris Canonici, (vols. I & IIT), Tauri- 
norum Augustae, 1921-1923. . 
CAPREOLUS, Joannes, Defensiones Theologiae D. Thomae, Turoni- 
bus, 1902-8. 
CARAMUEL, Joannis, Theologia Moralis Fundamentalis, (4 vols.), 
Lugduni, 1675-1676. 
Caswuist, The (5 vols.), New York, 1906-1917. 


ee ee. of 


Bibliography 411 


CaTALANUS, Josephus, Rituale Romanum, Benedictt Papae XIV 
Jussu Editum et Auctum, Perpetuis Commentarus Exorna- 
tum, (2 vols.), Petavii, 1760. 

Catholic Encyclopedia, The (16 vols. and Supplement), New 
York, 1907-1922. 

CAVALUIERI, Joannes Michael, Opera Omnia Liturgica, (5 vols.), 
Venetiis, 1758. 

Cave, Gulielmus, Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Historia Lite- 
raria, Genevae, 1705. 

CueLopr, Joannes, Jus de Personis juxta Codicem Juris Cano- 
met, Tridenti, 1922. 

CLeRIcatus, Joannes, Decisiones Sacramentales, (3 vols.), Ro- 
mae, 1757. 

Coccut, Guidus, Commentarium in Codicem Juris Canons ad 
Usum Scholarum, (7 vols.), Taurinorum Augustae, 1925 
(edit. tertia). 

Cotuzt, Pierre, Institutiones Theologiae Moralis, Lugduni, 1768. 

Concina, Daniel, Theologia Christiana Dogmatico-Moralis, (10 
vols.), Neapoli, 1772-1775. 

Contncx, Aegidius de, Commentariorum ac Disputationum im 
Universam Doctrinam D. Thomae De Sacramentis et Cen- 
suris Tomi Dwo, Antverpiae, 1619. 


DanieL, Herm. Adalb., Codex Liturgicus Ecclesiae Unwersae, 
(4 vols.), Lipsiae, 1847. 

D’ANNIBALE, Josephus, Summula Theologiae Moralis, (3 vols.), 
Romae, 1892. 

De Amicis, Petrus, Caeremoniale Parochorum, Romae, 1910. 

De Avoustinis, Almilius, 8. J.. De Re Sacramentaria Praelec- 
tiones Scholastico-Dogmaticae, (2 vols.), Woodstock Mary- 
landiae, 1879. 

De Lex, Joseph, The Principles and Practice of Obstetrics, 
Philadelphia and London, 1915. 

De Luao, Joannes, De Sacramentis in Genere, Venetiis, 1718. 

Disputationes Scholasticae et Morales (8 vol.), Parisiis, 
1868-1869. 

Dens, Petrus, Theologia Mechlimensis, Mechliniae, 1865. 

Denzicer, Henricus, Ritus Orientaliwm, (2 vols.), Wirceburgi, 
1864. 


412 Bibliography 


Drana, Antoninus, Coordinati Opera Omnia, (10 vols.), Vene- 
tiis, 1728. 

Dictionnaire des Ceremonies et des Rites Sacres, Petit-Mont- 
rouge, 1847. 

Dionysius, Carthusianus, In Sententiarum Librum Quartum 
Commentaru Locupletissum, Venetiis, 1784. 

Opera Omma, (18 vols.), Monstroli, 1896-9. 

Drovuven, Renatus, De Re Sacramentaria Contra Perduelles 
Haereticos, (2 vols.), Venetiis, 1772. 

Duranpbus, In P. Lombardi Sententias Theologicas Commenta- 
riorum Libri Quattuor, Venetiis, 1586. 

Durantus, Joannes, De Ritibus Ecclesiae Catholicae, Romae, 
1591. 

E.LBEL-BreRBAUM, Theologia Moralis per Modum Conferentta- 
rum, (3 vols.), Paderbornae, 1892. 

Encyclopedie de la Theologie Catholique, Paris, 1903. 

Estius (Est), Gulielmus, In Quattuor Libros Sententiarum 
Commentaria: Quibus Pariter S. Thomae Summae Theolo- 
gicae Partes Omnes Mirifice Illustrantur, (2 vols.), Parisiis, 
1696. 

Fa@nanus, Prosperus, Jus Canomcum seu Commentarium Ab- 
solutissimum in Quinque Libros Decretales, (4 vols.), Vene- 
tiis, 1696. 

Fauise, J. B., Liturgiae Practicae Compendium, Ratisbonae, 
1876, 

FANFANI, De Jure Parochorum Ad Normam Codicis Juris Ca- 
nonici, Taurini-Romae, 1924. ; 

De Jure Religiosorum, Taurini-Romae, 1925. 

Fr1yoo, O. 8. B., Cartas Eruditas, (ed. Rivadeneyra) Madrid. 

Frrraris, F. Lucius, Bibliothecae Prompta Canonica, Juridica, 
Moralis, Theologica, (8 vols.), Romae, 1885. 

FERRERES, Joannes, S. J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis ad 
Normam Codicis Juris Canonici, Barcinone, (3 vols.), (edit., 
quarta) 1909; (edit. tertia decima) 1925. 

| Death, Real and Apparent in Relation to the Sacra- 
ments, St. Louis, Freiburg, 1906. 

Fortescun, Adrian, The Orthodox Eastern Church, London, 

1907. 


Bibluography 413 


FrassEn, F. Claudius, Scotus Academicus, (12 vols. in 9), Ro- 
mae, 1720-1722. 
GENICOT-SALSMANS, Casus Conscientiae, Bruxellis, 1922. 
Institutiones Theologiae Moralis, (2 vols.), Bruxellis, 
1921, (edit. nona). 
GERSONIUS, Joannes, Opera Omma, (5 vols.), Antverpiae, 1706. 
GiurR, Nikolaus, Die hl. Sacramenten d. Kath., Kirche, 1903. 
Goar, Huchologion swe Rituale Graecorum, Venetiis, 1730. 
Gosatus, Georgius, 8S. J., Operum Moraliwm, hoc est, Experien- 
tiarum Theologicarum, sive Experimentalis Theologiue de 
Septem Sacramentis, Duaci, 1700. 
GoneEtT, Joannes B., Clypeus Theologuae Thomisticae Contra No- 
vos Ejus Impugnatores, (6 vols.), Parisiis, 1876. 
GuRY-FERRERES, Casus Conscientiae, (2 vols.), Barcinone, 1921. 
Gury, Joannes, Compendium Theologiae Moralis, (2 vols.), Ro- 
mae, 1873. 
Hanusgy P. J., Treatise on the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, 
New York, 1907. 
HEIMBUCHER, Die heilige Oelung, Ratisbonne, 1888. 
Herpt, P. J. de, Sacrae Liturgiae Praxis et Cura, (8 vols.), 
Lovanii, 1883. 
Heuser, Herman J., The Parish Priest on Duty, New York- 
Cinecinnati-Chicago (n. d.) 
Hourter, Henricus, S. J., Theologiae Dogmaticae Compendium, 
(3 vols.), Oentiponte, 1885. 
Icarp, Severin, La Mort Reélle et la Mort Apparente, 1897. 
TenatiJ, ,,O tainstvah jedinoj, svjatoj, sobornoj 4 apostolskoj 
cerkvi. Opyt arheologicesky..’ Sanktpeterburg, 1863. 
JUENIN, Gaspare, Commentarius Historicus et Dogmaticus de 
Sacramentis In Genere et in Specie, Venetiis, 1740. 

Kenrick, F. P., Theologia Moralis, (3 vols.), Philadelphiae, 
18438. 

Kenrick, F. P. Theologia Dogmatica, (3 vols.) Mechliniae, 
1859. 

Kurn, Josephus, 8. J., De Sacramento Extremae Unctionis Trac- 
tatus Dogmaticus, Ratisbonae, 1907. 

Kine, James I., The Adminstration of the Sacraments to Dying 
Non-Catholics, Washington, 1924. 


414 Bibliography 


KIRCHELEXICON, (12 vols.), Freiburg-Briesgau, 1882-1901. 

Koninas, Theologia Moralis, Neo-Eboraci, (n. d.) 

KoupreuKa, Charles, Pastors, Their Rights and Duties, Wash- 
megton, 1921. 

KozMa DE Papt, Carolus, Liturgica Sacra Catholica, Ratisbonae, 
1863. 

LaCroix, Claudius, Theologia Moralis, (2 vols.), Venetiis (n. 
d.) 

Lavunol, Joannes, Opera, Omnia, (5 vols. in 10), Coloniae Allo- 
gobrorum, 1731. 

LAYMANN, Paulus, Theologia Moralis, (2 vols. in 1), Venetiis, 
1719. 

LEHMKUHBL, Augustinus, Casus Conscientiae, (2 vols.), Friburgi 
Brisgoviae, 1902. 

Theologia Moralis, (2 vols.), Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1914. 

Liguori, St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, Augustae Taurino- 
rum, 1879. 

Theologia Moralis, (10 vols.), Mechliniae, 1842-1845. 

LinearD, John, The Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church, 
Philadelphia, 1841. 

MABILLON, Jean, Praefationes in Actis Sanctorum Ordimus BS. 
Benedictt in Saeculorum Classes Distributis Praefizae, Ro- 
tomagi, 1732. 

MAaBILLONIvs, Joannes, Museum Italicum seu Collectio Veterum 
Scriptorum ex Bibliothecis Italicis, (2 vols.), Lutetiae Pari- 
siorum, 1724, 

MAGISTRETTI, Mareus, Manuale Ambrosianum, 1905. 

MakKaRiJ, ,,Pravoslavno-dogmaticeskoje bogoslovije..‘  Peter- 
burg, 1895. 

MaLponarTus, Joannes, Commentarius in Quattuor Evangelistas, 
(2 vols.), Moguntiae, 1862. 

Mautzew, Alexios, Die Sacramente der Orthodoz-katholischen 
Kirche des Morgenlandes, Berlin, 1898. 

Many, S., S. S., Praelectiones de Locis Sacris, Parisiis, 1904. 

Marinooua, Aloisius, Institutiones Liturgicae, Neapoli, 1864. 

MarrEeng, Edmundus, De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus, (4 vols.), 
Rotomagi, 1700-6. 


Mastrius, Bartholomeus, Theologia Moralis, Venetiis, 1671. 


Bibliography 415 


MATHARAN-CASTILLON, Asserta Moralia, Paris, 1920. 

Micueterti, A. M., De Pastore Animarum, Friburgi et Romae, 
ime day 

MippLeTon, Richard, Authorati Theologi Ricard a Media Villa, 
Parisiis, 1519. 

Mieng, J. P., Cursus Theologius Completus, (28 vols.), Petit- 
Montrange, 1845-1860. 

Patrologia Graeca, (161 vols.), Parisiis, 1858-1864. 
Patrologia Latina, (221 vols.), Parisiis, 1847-1870. 

Moron, Joseph, Institutions Canoniques a L’Usage des Curves 
Episcopales, du Clerge Paroissial, et des Familles Reli- 
greuses, (2 vols.), Lille, 1924. 

Murpuy, George, Delinquencies and Penalties in the Adminis- 
tration and the Reception of the Sacraments, Washington, 
1923. 

Natauis, Alexander, Theologia Dogmatica et Moralis, (2 vols.), 
Venetiis, 1705. 

Neyracuet D., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Ratisbonae, 
1851. 

Noupin, H., 8. J.. Summa Theologiae Moralis, Oentiponte, (3 
vols.), (ed. septima) 1908; (edit. quarta decima), 1921. 
O’Kanz, James, Notes on the Rubrics of the Roman Ritual, Dub- 

jin, 1922. ; 

O’Mauiey, Austin, The Ethics of Medical Homicide and Mutila- 
tion, New York, 1922. 

PALLAVICINI, Sforza, Istoria del Concilio di Trento, (4 vols.), 
Roma, 1833. 

PauMIERI, Dominicus, Opus Theologicum, Prati, 1889-93. 

PaLupANus (Peter de Palude), Exactissimia atque Maxime 
Probati ac Clarissimi Doctoris Petri de Palude Predicatori 
ordims Hierosolymitani quondam patriarchi diguissimi 
quartus sententiarum liber, Parisiis, 1518. 

Pappiani, Albertus, Doctrina Christiana de Sacramentis Eccle- 
siae Sacrosanctis Ab Heterodoxorum Erroribus Vindicata, 

“ Florentiae, 1772. 

PascHane, John L., The Sacramentals According to The New 

Code of Canon Law, Washington, 1925. 


416 Bibliography 


Peuuicta, De Christianae Ecclesiae Primae, Mediae et Novis- 
simae Polita, (2 vols.), Collonniae, 1829. 

PERRONE, Joannes, Praelectiones Theologicae, Mediolani et Gene- 
vae, 1857. 

Pescu, Christianus, Praelectiones Dogmaticae, (9 vols.), Fri- 
burgi Brisgoviae, 1920. 

Perrus Lomparpus, Quattuor Libri Sententiarum (Cf. Migne, 
Be D2a)92 ). 

Pierrot, L’Abbé, Dictionnaire de la Theologie Morale, Petit- 
Montrouge, 1849. 

Picui-Frrrais, Liturgia Sacerdotalis, Veronae, 1907. 

PIGNATELLI, Jacobus, Consultationes Canonicae, (vols. 10), Colo- 
niae Allogobrorum. 

PouuE-Prevuss, The Sacraments, St. Louis, 1920. 

PRuEMMER, Manuale Juris Ecclesiastici, Friburgi Brisgoviae, 
1922. 

Manuale Theologiae Moralis, (8 vols.), Friburgi Bris- 
goviae, 1923. 

RauMant, Ignatius Ephraem II, Testamentum Domim Nostre 
Jesu Christi, Moguntiae, 1899. 

Repina, Augustinus, Vheologia Scholastica Universa, Einsiedeln, 
1687. 

REIFFENSTUEL, Anacletus, Jus Canonicum Universum, (7 vols.), 
Paris, 1864-70. 

RevuTER-LEHMKUHL-UMBERG, Neo-Confessarius Practice Instruc- 
tus, Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1919. 

Routine, Augustinus, Medulla Theologiae Moralis, Sti. Ludovici, 
1875. 

Ropzs, James Hardy, International Commentary on the Epistle 
of St. James, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, New 
York, 1916. 

SapBertr-BaRReTr, Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Neo-Ebo- 
raci, 1920. 

SaInTE-BEuvE, Jacobus de, Tractatus de Sacramento Extremae 
Unctionis, (apud Migne, Cursus Theologicus Completus, 
vol. xxiv.) 

SALMANTICENSES, Collegti Salmanticensis Fratrum Discalcea- 
torum B. Mariae de Monte Carmeli Primitwae Observan- 
tiae Cursus Theologiae Moralis, Venetiis, 1728. 





Bibliography 417 


SancueEz, Joannes, Selectae, Illaeque Practicae Disputationes de 
Rebus in Administratione Sacramentorum, Venetiis, 1639. 

Sanrorp, Alexander, Pastoral Medicine, Revised and Enlarged 
by a Chapter on the Moment of Death by the Rev. Walter 
M. Drum, S. J., New York, 1905. 

Sassz, Joannes, 8. J., Institutiones Theologicae De Sacramentis 
Ecclesiae, (2 vols.), Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1898. 

Scavint, Petrus, Theologia Moralis Universa Ad Mentem S. Al- 
phonsi M. de Ligorio, Pio IX Pontificr M. Dicata, (4 vols.), 
Mediolani, 1869. 

ScHaaF, Valentine T., The Cloister, Cincinnati, 1921. 

Scuanz, Die Lehre von der heilegen Sakramenten der Katholis- 
chen Kirche, 1893. 

ScuetL, Herman, Katholische Dogmatik, (4 vols.), Paderborn, 
1889. 

Scumitz, De Effectibus Extremae Unctionis, Friburgi Brisgo- 
viae, 1893. 

Scotus, Joannes Duns, Reportata Parisiensia, Parisiis, 1894. 

SEBASTIANI, Nicolas, Swmmarium Theologiae Moralis ad Codicem 
Juris Canonici Accomodatum, Taurinorum Augustae, 1921. 

Srmar, Theophil, Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, Paderborn, 1889. 

Sater, Thomas, A Manual of Moral Theology, (2 vols.), New 
York, 1908. 

Sorus, Dominicus, Commentarium FP’. Dom. Sotiin Quartum Sen- 
tentiarum, (2 vols.), Venetiis, 1579. 

Srane, William, Pastoral Theology, Brussels, 1897. 

Suarez, Franciscus, 8. J., Opera Omnia, (26 vols.), Parisiis, 
1861. ; 

Synvester, Summae Sylvestrinae, (2 vols.), Venetiis, 1601. 

Syuvius, Franciscus, Commentarium in Tertiam Partem 8. 
Thomae Aquinatis, Venetiis, 1726. 

TAMBURINI, Thomas, S. J., Juris Divini, Naturalis, et Ecclesia- 
stici Expedita Morals Explicatio, (3 vols. in 2), Venetiis, 
1748. 

TanquerEy, Adrian, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae ad Men- 
tem 8. Thomae Aquinatis Holdiernis Moribus Accomodata, 
Romae-Tornaci-Parisiis, (3 vols.), 1921. 


418 Bibliography 


TANQUEREY-QUEVASTRE, Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Moralis et 
Pastoralis, Romae-Tornaci-Parisiis, (editions of 1911 and 
1920). 

Tapper, Richardus, Opera, Coloniae, 1583. 

TELCH, Carolus, Epitome Theologiae Moralis Unwersae per De- 
finitiones, Divisiones et Summaria Principia, Oentiponte, 
LOLS, 

THomas Aquinas, Sanctus, Opera Omnia, (34 vols.), Parisiis, 
1871-1880. : 

Summa Philosophia Contra Gentiles, Parisiis (n. d.). 
Summa Theologica, (6 vols.), Romae, 1894. 

TouRNELY, Honoratus, Praelectiones Theologicae de Septem Ec- 
clesiae Sacramentis, (2 vols.), Parisiis, 1729. 

Tractatus de Unwersa Theologia Moral, (9 vols.), Pa- 
risiis, 1743-50. 

TROMBELLIO, Joannes C©., Tractatus de Sacramentis per Pole- 
micas et Liturgicas Dissertationes Dispositii—De Extrema 
Unctione, (3 vols.), Bononiae, 1776. 

VAN DER StTAPPEN, J. F., Sacra Liturgia, (5 vols.), Mechliniae, 
le 

VAN Espen, Zegerus, Jus Ecclesiasticum Universum Ceteraque 
Scripta Omnia, Venetiis, 1769. 

VeRMEERSCH, Arturus, S. J., Theologiae Moralis, Principia, Re- 
sponsa, Consilia, (8 vols.), Romae, 1923. 

VERMEERSCH-CREUSEN, Summa Novis, Juris, Romae, 1918. 

Epitome Juris Canonici, (3 vols.), Romae, 1925. 

VicroriA, Franciscus, Summa Sacramentorum, Antverpiae, 1572. 

VicoureEL, Adrian, 8. 8., A Synthetical Manual of Liturgy, Bal- 
timore, 1907. 

Voir, Edmundus, Theologia Moralis, (2 vols.), Wireeburgi, 1860. 

WALDENSIS (Thomas Netter), Doctrinale Antiqui Fidei, Vene- 
LHS rd: 

Warren, F. E., The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church, 
Oxford, 1881. 

WatTERWOoRTH, Canons and Decrees of The Council of Trent, 
London, 1848. 

WERNZ-VIDAL, Jus Canonicum De Personis, Romae, 1923. 





a en ee ee a ae ee ee eee SS ee eee eee 


Bibliography 419 


Woyrwonp, Stanislaus, O. F. M., A Practical Commentary on the 
Code of Canon Law, (2 vols.), New York, 19209. 


PERIODICALS 


AcotytrE, The, Huntington, vol. IT (1926). 

American EccursiasticAL Review, The, Philadelphia, vols. 
XVIII (1898), XIX (1898), XxX (1899), xX XLT CL900), 
XXV (1901), XXXI (1904), XXXIIT (1905), XO 
(1906), XLII (1910), XLVITI (1913), LVI (1917); LD Vit 
(1917), LVIII (1918), LX (1919), LXI (1919), LXIL 
(1920), LXITX (1923). 

Anauecta Eccuestastica, Romae, vol. VIII (1900). 

Britis Meprcan Journau, The, London, Feb. 1914. 

Canonists Contremporain, Louvain, vol. XXX (1907). 

De Reuiqgiosis Er Missionarus SUPPLEMENTA ET MONUMENTA 
Prrropica, Brugis, vol. III (1911). 

Ex Crrrerio Caruonico En Las Crencias MEpicas, Barcelona, 
May to Aug., 1903. 

Epuemerwes Lirurcicar, Romae, vols. V (1891), XX (1906), 
NOMI GRUVER 2:0-@-4 BGR 

Erupes FRANCISCAINES, Paris, tome V, No. 25, (Jan. 1901) 

Hommetic aNp Pasrorat Review, The, New York, vols. XXII 
(1922), XXVI (1926). 

In Monrrore Eccuxstastico, Roma, vols. VI (1895), XIX 
(1907), XXIX (1916). 

Irisu Eccuestastican Recorp, The, Dublin, (Fifth Series), vols. 
VI (1915), VII (1916), XII (1918). 

Irish THEOLOGICAL QuARTERLY, The, Dublin, vols. LE OY0R 
Pelee LU Li): 

JouRNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL Mepicing, The, New York, vol. XVI 
(1912). 

JouRNAL or THE AMERICAN MEpICAL ASSOCIATION, Chicago, July 
6, 1912 (vol. LIX, No. 1), Jan. 9, 1915, (vol. LXIV, No. 2). 

L’Amr pu Cuerae, Langres, vols., XXX (1908), XX XIII (1911), 
KX LV (L912 

NovuveLLe RevvE THEOLOGIQUE, Tournal, vol. XXXL 61899): 

PumapELPHIA Pusuic Leper, Jan. 3, 1923. 

Presse Meprcaueg, La, Paris. 


420 Bibliography 


Razon Y Fs, Madrid, vols. VIII (1903), IX (1903), XVI 
(1906), XLVIII (1917). 

REVUE BENEDICTINE, Abbaye de Maredsous, vol. XIII (1896). 

REVUE CATHOLIQUE DES Hetuisss, vol. II, (1905). 

RevvuE D’ HISTOIRE ET DE LITTERATURE RELIGIEUSES, Paris, vol. 
X (1905). 

REVUE THEOLOGIQUE FRANCAIS, Toulouse, 1906. 

‘THEOLOGISCH-PRAKTISCHE QUARTALSCHRIFT, Linz, vols. LXIX 
(1916), LXXI (1918), LXXIX (1926). (This is quoted 
in the footnotes as the Linzer Quartalschrift). 

WasHINGTON Post, The, March 10, 1926. 

ZEITSCHRIFT FUR KIRCHENGESCHISCHICHTE, Gotha, vol. XX 
(1900). 





INDEX 


ADDITION, of unblessed oil to 


blessed, 326. 


ADMINISTRATION, conditional, 205 sqq., 
237; to drunken people, 239; to 
those rendered unconscious in act 
of mortal sin, 237 sqq.; to those 
who have refused the sacraments 
until unconsciousness, 241; to those 
under censure, 236; absolute, to all 
those petitioning it, 261; to the 
violently insane or delirious, 261; 
to the unconscious, 249; fee for, 
151 sqq.; rite of, 345, sqq., when 
given by several priests in the Latin 
Rite, 91; ordinary mode of, 347 
sqq.; mode of, in case of necessity, 
371. 

ADULTERATION, of the oil, danger of, 
72. 

Acer, of reason, in regard to E. U., 
142 sqq.; doubtful attainment of, 
206 sqq. 

AmBry, 335, sq.; place in church, 336, 
in the rectory, 341. 

ASPHYXIA, 216. 


BISHOP, minister of the blessing of 
the oil, 299. 

BLESSING, of the oil, 297; some bless- 
ing required, 45; nature of required 
blessing, 299. 

BLIND, unction of the, 371. 

Bopy, health of, as effect of E, U., 35. 

Bourse, for oil-stock, 335. 


CADAVERIC COLDNESS, in cases 
of apparert death, 213. 


CATALEPSY, 216. 


CATECHUMENS, oil of, in administer- 
ing E. U., 312 sqq.; prohibition to 
take, on sick-calls, 341; prohibition 
to keep, in rectory, 340. 


CATHEDRAL, blessing of oil in, 318; 
dispensing of oil from, 321. 


CENSURE, administration to those un- 
der, 236. 


CHARITY, obligation in, of every priest 
in case of necessity, 117; towards 
one’s self to receive EK. U., 275 
sqq.; to take care of health, 404. 


CHILDREN, anointment of those who 
have reached the age of reason, 
142; administration to, in case of 
doubtful attainment of use of rea- 
son, 206 sqq.; obligation of pastor 
in this regard, 112. 


CHRISM, use of, in administering 
i. U., 312 sqq. 
CONDITION, to be inserted, when 


anointing in apparent death, 222; 
when anointing children whose use 
of reason is doubtful, 208; when 
subject is doubtfully obstinate in 
manifest mortal sin, 246, when a 
subject thus doubtfully obstinate 
becomes repentant, 247. 


CONDITIONAL ADMINISTRATION, 205 
sqq.; to those who have doubtfully 
attained the use of reason, 206 sqq.; 
to those doubtfully in danger of 
death, 208 sqq.; to those doubtfully 
alive, 210 sqq.; to those undergoing 
surgical operations, 179, sqq.; in 
eases of repetition, 198; when a 
subject, once anointed, falls into a 
danger of death from a_ second 
source, 200. 


CONFESSION, prior to E. U., necessity 
of, 232; seal of, anointing of one 
whose unworthiness is known from, 
248. 


CONTAGIOUS DISEASE, behavior of 
priest when anointing in, 404. 


CoNTUMACY, in manifest mortal sin, 
229 sqq. 

CoNTEMPT, in the reception of E. U., 
278. 


Corton, use of, in reservation of the 
oil, 334; in wiping off unctions, 
362; disposal of, after use, 362 
sqq.; in contagious diseases, 402. 

CREMATION, anointing of those who 
have ordered, 231. 

Cross, unctions made in form of, 358. 


Custom, of carrying the oil habitually 
upon the person of the priest, 343; 
of keeping the oil in the rectory, 
340, 


[ 421] 


422 


DANGER, of death, required for valid 
administration of E. U., 164 sqq.; 
must be intrinsic to the subject, 
164. 


Dear, unction of the, 371. 


DEATH, 
anointing in, 
anoint in, 113. 


apparent, signs of, 211; 
219; obligation to 


DELINQUENCY, of duty, on the part of 
pastors, in regard to HE. U., 289. 


DeLIRiouUS, administration to the, 261. 


DENIAL, of the sacrament, to the con- 
tumaciously impenitent, 225 sqq. 


DISINFECTANTS, use of, by priest when 
anointing, 107, 403. 


DisposaL, of old oil, 325. 


DISPOSITION, required for remission of 
mortal sin by E. U., 30; for remis- 
sion of venial sin, 31; for remission 
of temporal punishment, 33; evil- 
ness of, to warrant denial of ad- 
ministration, 229. 


DISTRACTION, voluntary, in the form, 
28. 


DISTRIBUTION, of oils, fee for, 321. 


Docrors, duty of, in regard to pro- 
curing E. U., for patients, 291. 


DRUNKENNESS, 


voluntary, anointing 
Lala toe be eee ; 


Duty, of the pastor, to administer 
EK. U., 108, sqq.; to promote timely 
administration of E. U., 282; of 
parents, in regard to procuring 
B. Use 29) of physicians | Gein 
regard to procuring HE. U., 291; de- 
linqueney of, on part of pastor to 
administer HE. U., 289. 


EARS, unction of, 359. 


EFFECTS, 28 sqq.; remission of sins, 
ibid.; remission of temporal punish- 
ment, 32; the ‘‘confortatio 
animae,’” 34; the restitution of 
bodily health, 35; principal, 38. 


ELEMENTS, of EK. U., 61 sqq. 


EMERGENCY CALLS, frequency of, as 
reason for keeping the oils in the 
rectory, 340, 342. 


Enp, of KE. U., the immediate entrance 
into glory, 20 sqq. 
EPILEPTIC COMA, 216, 


Index 


EPISCOPAL BLESSING, required for oil, 
299 sqq. 

:xPRESS, transportation of the oil by, 
324. 

Eyes, unction of, 359. 


FAITHFUL, subject of E. U. must be 
elas 

Fre, for distributing the oils, 321; 
for administration of E. U., 151 
sqq. 

Fret, unction of, 368; omission of, 
for a reasonable cause, 394. 

FOREHEAD, unction of, in short 
method of administration, 377. 

Form, variety of forms, 26 sqq., 73 
sqq.; necessity of deprecatory, 27; 
distractions in, 28; in the ordinary 
mode of administration, 348;  es- 
sential words of, 348, sqq.; short 
form, in case of necessity, 378. 


ForMULA, for blessing the oil, 310, 
318. 


FRIGUS cadavericum, 218. 


GREEKS, customs of, in the admin- 
istration of E. U., 53, 66; variety 
of forms in Greek rite, 66; in re- 
gard to the minister, 88, 91; abuses 
by, in regarding to conferring 
EK. U., 145 sqq. 


HABITUAL earrying of the oils on 
the person of the priest, 343. 


TiANpsS, unction of, 365; in case of 
necessity, 221, 378, 245. 


HEALTH, bodily, recovery of, 35. 
IHIERETICS, anointing of, 124 sqq. 


Hoty THURSDAY, ceremony of blessing 
the oil on, 318; prohibition of add- 
ing unblessed oil to the oil just 
blessed, 327. 


Houses, priest’s, see Rectory. 

ILLNESS, gravity of, required for 
validity, 157 sqq. 

IMPLICIT, intention, 252; petition, 255. 

INSANE, administration to the, 143; 
when violent, 261. 


INTENTION, kinds of, 251; in the con- 
tumaciously impenitent, 225; mani- 
festation of, thru petition, 253 sqq. 


INTERPRETATIVE, intention, 255; peti- 
tion, ibid, 





Index 


INSTRUMENT, use of, 400. 

INVERSION, of order of unctions, 397. 

TTERABILITY, 51 sqq.; validity of, in 
same danger of death, 51; liceity 
of, 185 sq.; in different dangers of 
death, 191 sqq.; in lingering ill- 
nesses, 194 sqq., 


JUSTICE, obligation in, for ordinary 
minister, 103. 


LAYMEN, cannot administer E. U., 
81 sqq.; can touch vessels of oil for 
sufficient reason, 323; transporta- 
tion of oil by, 322 sqq. 


LATENT LIFE, length of, 218. 
Leprosy, anointing in cases of, 402. 
LETHARGY, 216. 

LIcENSE, to administer E. U., 100. 


LINGERING ILLNESS, 
BE. U., in, 194 sqq. 


Lips, unction of, 364. 
Livipity, cadaveric, 214. 


repetition of 


MAIL, transportation of oil by, 324. 
MaTerraL of vessel for oil, 334. 


Marter, remote, of E. U., 24 sqq.; 
proximate, 64 sqq. 


MINISTER OF E. U., valid, 79 sqq.; 
proof from text of St. James, 11 
sqq.; not a layman, 81 sqq.; num- 
ber of ministers, 85 sqq.; licit, 92 
sqq.; in case of necessity, 99; ordi- 
nary, 103, bound from justice, ibid. ; 
extraordinary, 100, 117. 


MopeE of unction, 357. 
MoutH, unction of, 364. 
Mutes, unetion of, 371. 


NAME, called by many names, 4; in 
Latin Rite, ibid.; in Greek Rite, 
ibid.; reasons for present name, 5. 

NARCOSIS, as a 
death, 216. 


NeEcEssity, cases of, in regard to law- 
fulness of administration, 99; ob- 
ligation of every priest to anoint 
in, 117; of E. U. for salvation, 265; 
of precept, 269; duty of physician 
in cases of, 294; of relatives, 292 
sq.; for reservation of oil in rec- 
tory, 339; for short form of unc- 
tion, 371 sqq.; examples of, 375 sq. 


sign of apparent 


423 


NEGLIGENCE, in the reception of E. U., 
269; distinguished from contempt, 
279. 

Non-CAaTHOLICS, anointing of, 124 
sqq.; arguments of, 126 sqq.; argu- 
ments against, 124 sqq. 

Nose, unction of, 363. 

NursES, duty of, in regard to pro- 
curing Hoes L: 


OBEX, impeding effects of E. U., 49, 
how removed, dl. 


OBLIGATION, of minister, ordinary, 
from justice, 103 sqq.; on extraordi- 
nary minister from charity, 117; on 
pastor, when E. U. is sole means 
of salvation, 108 sqq.; when child’s 
use of reason is doubtful, 112; in 
eases of apparent death, 113; in re- 
gard to anointing non-Catholics, 
115; of repeating E. U., 194, 198, 
202; in case of doubtful contumacy, 
230; upon the subject to receive 
E. U., 263 sqq. 

OBSTINATE, impenitence, 
tion to one in, 241. 


administra- 


OccULT SINNERS, anointing of, 248; 
when known from seal of confes- 
sion, ibid. 


Or, of catechumens, use of in admin- 
istering E. U., 312 sqq.; of the Sick, 
must be olive, 24; danger of adul- 
teration of the, 72; distribution of, 
321; transportation of, by laymen, 
322; disposal of old, 325; replen- 
ishing supply of, 326; addition of 
unblessed to blessed, 326; prohibi- 
tion of adding unblessed to blessed 
on Holy Thursday, 327; reserva- 
tion of, 331; material of vessels for, 
334; reservation of, under lock and 
key, 336; custom of carrying 
habitually upon the person of the 
priest, 343; prohibition to keep in 
tabernacle, 337; wiping off, after 
unction, 361. 


Oru-stTocK, regulations for, 334 sqq.; 
burse for, 3385. 


OLD AGE, see senility. 
OMISSION, of unction, 357. 


OrpDER, of unctions, 356; inversion of, 
ir 
RW 


ORDINARY, permission of, to keep oi 
in rectory, 339, 


424 Index 


PARTURITION, danger of death 
from, 173 sqq. 


Pastor, the ordinary minister of 
E. U., 103; duty of, to use zeal in 
promoting the timely administra- 
tion of E. U., 282; obligation of, to 
renew oil promptly, 319, from his 
own Ordinary, 319, 321; right to 
supply the unctions, when short 
form has been used, 390, 393. 

PETITION, as the manifestation of in- 
tention, 253 sqq.; implicit, 255, in- 
terpretative, ibid., explicit, ibid. 


PLACE OF UNCTION, in older Rituals, ° 


66 sqq.; in present Latin Rite, 356, 
sqq. 

PREGNANCY, see Parturition. 

Priest, the minister of E. U., 79 
sqq.; as shown from the text of St. 
James, 11 sqq.; as minister of the 
blessing of the oil, 310; unction of 
the hands of a, 366. 

PROCEDURE, mode of, against delin- 
quent pastors, 290. 

PROTESTANTS, see Non-Catholics. 

‘PUNISHMENT, temporal, remission of, 
32. 

PURGATORY, remission of punishment 
of, 32 

PUTREFACTION, as only certain sign 
of somatic death, 215. 


QUANTITY of unblessed oil that 
may be added to blessed, 328. 


REASON, age of, subject must have 
attained, 135. 

Rectory, reservation of oil in, 338 
sqq. 

REDUNDANCY of members, anointing 
when there is a, 370. 


REFUSAL of subject, to receive E. U., 
274, 284; duty of pastor in case 
of, ibid. 

REINS, unction of, 394. 


RELATIVES, duty of, to procure E. U., 
Pah 


REMISSION, of sins, as effect of E. U., 
28; of temporal punishment, as ef- 
fect of E. U., 32. 


RENEWAL, of the oil, obligation on 
pastor in regard to, 319. 


REPETITION, see Iterability. 
REPLENISHING of the oil, 326. 


RESERVATION, of oil, 331; under lock 
and key, 336, but not in tabernacle, 
337; in sacristy, 337; in the rec- 
tory, 338. 

REVIVISCENCE, 49 sqq.; requirements 
for, 57. 

Rigor, cadavericus, 213. 

Rite, of blessing the oil, 310, 318; 
of administering E. U., in the Latin 
Church, 357 sqq. 


SACRAMENTALITY, proof in favor 
of, from Scripture, 7 sqq.; from 
Tradition, 19 sqq. 

SACRILEGE, committed in reception of 
E. U., repetition after, 200. 


Saocristy, reservation of oil in, 3387. 

Sr. JAMES, epistle of, promulgation 
of E. U. found therein, 8; examina- 
tion of the text (V, 14), 8 sqq. 


Sr. Mark, gospel of, in regard to the 
sacramentality of E. U., 17 sqq. 


SCHISMATICS, anointing of, 124; also 
see Non-Catholic. 


ScRIPTURE, argument from, 7 sqq. 


Senmity, danger of death from, 184; 
repetition of E. U. in cases of, 191 


sqq. 

Sick, the, as the subject of E. U., 8 
sqq., 164 sqq.; oil of, 24, 72. 

Siens, of apparent death, 212. 

SINGLE UNCTION, sufficient for valid- 
ity, 45, 377. 

SoLicrrupE, of the Church, in regard 
to E. U., 280. 


SrrpEND, for administration of EK. U., 
291, for distribution of the oil, 321. 


Srock, for oil, regulations for, 334 
sqq. 

SUBJECT, requisites in, 123 sqq.; ob- 
ligation to receive, 269. 

SuFFICIENCY, of a single unction, 49, 
377. 

SUPERSTITIONS in regard to E, U., 
153, 279. 


Supply of oil, replenishing of, 326. 


SuppLyina of unctions, 379; is it @ 
repetition of the sacrament, 386. 


SurGEONS, duty of, in regard to pro- 
curing E. U., 291. 


SWOONING, 216, 





| 


Index 


TABERNACLE, prohibition to keep 
oils in, 337. 

TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT, remission of, 
32. 

‘HURSDAY, Holy, ceremony of bless- 
ing the oil on, 318; prohibition of 
adding unblessed oil to oil just 
blesscd on, 327. 

TRANSPORTATION of oil, by laymen, 
322; by mail or express, 324. 

TRADITION, proof of sacramentality 
fiom, 19 sqq. 


THUMB, unctions made with, 358. 


UNBLESSED oil, addition to blessed 
oil, 326; quantity of, to be added, 


328. 


Unconscious, administration to the, 
249 
~ . 


425 


Unctions, places of, in old Rituals, 
66 sqq.; in Roman Ritual 347; when 
organs are missing, 369; when 
members are redundant, 370; order 
of, 356; inversion of order of, 357; 
omission of, 357; mode of, 357 sqq.; 
made with thumb, 358; in the form 
of a cross, 358; of eyes, 359; of 
ears, 363; of nose, 363, of mouth, 
364; of hands, 365, priest’s hands, 
366; of feet, 368, omission of, for 
reasonable cause, 398; of forehead, 
373; of reins, 294; wiping off of, 
361; one, sufficient for validity, 45, 
377; supplying of, 379; does the 
supplying of, constitute a repetition 
of the sacrament, 366. 

Unity, nature of, in E. U., 42 sqq. 


VESSEL, for oil, material of, 334. 
ViRGULA, use of, 400. 


WORDS, essential, of form, 348 sqq. 





FacuLtTas JURIS CANONICI 


UNivERsITAS CAaTHOLICA AMERICAE 


W ASHINGTONII 
1925-1926 


No. 32 


[ 427 ] 





ks aol 4 Be 


> vy . LS hnly 


+ ¢ ° i re / 
ay "9 j A ws, fi Jt ae c. (Se 
‘. iy ‘A +. , 5" a ’ ; 

k ; Ly , : . : he 
4 . } To ae 
8 4% é - & oi Db. act ‘ he Mh é < 
t re f a } j P >. : iv is Ey 
£ Pn -pte fF, 7) Date er ba A 





DEUS LUX MEA 


THESES 
QUAS 
AD DOCTORATUS GRADUM 


IN 


JURE CANONICO 


Apud Universitatem Catholicam Americae 


CONSEQUENDUM 


PUBLICE PROPUGNABIT 


ADRIANUS HIERONYMUS KILKER 
SACERDOS ARCHIDIOECKESIS 
PHILADELPHIENSIS 


JURIS CANONICI LICENTIATUS 





HORA XI A. M. DIE XXVIII MAIL A. D. MCMXXVI 





[ 429 ] 


EVEL 
XVII. 
AVIII. 
UEXG 


XX. 
OGL 
MOGI 
XXII. 
DOG IN 


PD. QGE 


XXVI. 
DOGS AE 
XXVIII. 


DDG DS 
XXX. 
XXXII. 


XXXIT. 
XXXITI. 


JUS CANONICUM 


De Ambitu Codicis 

Promulgatione Legis 

Subjecto Legum Particularium 
Temporis Supputatione 
Aequisitione Privilegiorum 
Dispensationibus 

Romano Pontifice 


. De Idoneitate Requisita ad Episcopatum 


Usu Pontificalium 
Visitatione ad Limina 


. De Functionibus Parocho Reservatis 
. De Appheatione Missae pro Populo 
. De Vicario Cooperatore 

. De Requisitis pro Admissione in Novitiatum 
. De Ingressu in Clausuram Monialium 


De Ministro Baptismi 

De Loco Baptismi 

De Ministro Confirmationis 

De Sacerdote Extraneo Volente Litare 
Sacrum 

De Administratione S. Communionis 

De Confessionibus Exeipiendis i Mari 

De Obligatione Confitendi Peceata 

De Subjecto Extremae Unctionis 

De Licentia Coneessa Assistendi Matri 
monio 

De Denegatione 
asticae 

De Abstinentia et Jejunio 

De Notione Judicii Eeclesiastici 

De Causis ad 8. Sedem Reservatis 


Sepulturae  Ecclesi- 


1569, 


De Tribunali Seeundae Instantiae 

De Causis contra Sacram Ordinationem 

De Modo Procedendi contra Parochum 
in Adimplendis Officiis Paroecialibus 
Negligentem 

De Natura et Divisione Delicti 

De Divisione Poenarum 


[ 430 ] 


Canons 
1a 

8-9 
13-14 
31-35 
63-65 
80-84 
218-221 
ai) 

337 
341-342 
462 

339, 466 
476 
542 
600 
738-744 


771; 713,716 


782-784 


804 
867-869 
883 
906-907 
940-944 


1096 


1240-1241 
1250-1254 
1552-1553 
1557-1558 
1962-1963 
1594-1596 
1993-1998 


2182-2185 
2195-2198 
2216-2217 


ee eee te 


Theses 431 


XXXIV. De Superiore Potestatem Coactivam 


Habente 2220-2225 

XXXV. De Remissione Poenarum 2236-2240 

XXXVI. De Absolutione Censurarum 2252-2254 
XXXVII. De Natura et Divisione Excommunica- 

tionis 22571-2208 

XXXVITI. De Effeetibus Excommunicationis 2259-2267 

XXXIX. De Definitione et Divisione Interdicti 2268-2269 

ROMAN LAW 


JUSTINIAN Law 
XL. Slavery—Modes and Effects 

XLI. Release from Slavery 

XLII. The Effects of Release 
XLITI. ‘‘ Affines Servi’’ 
XLIV. Citizens—Who are Citizens and How Citizenship 

Is Acquired 

XLV. Loss of Citizenship 

XLVI. Modification of Personality 
XLVII.<‘‘Cura et Tutela’’ 


INSTITUTES OF GAIUS 


XLVIII. Modes of Manumission 
XLIX. Rights of Citizenship 
L. Loss of Citizenship 


INTERNATIONAL LAW 


LI. The Nature of International Law 
LIT. Sourees of International Law 
LIII. The Drago Doctrine 
LIV. The Extraterritoriality of Vessels 
LV. The Monroe Doctrine 
LVI. Spheres of Influence 
LVII. Treaties—Purpose and Scope 
IVIL. Diplomatic Agents: Immunity 
LIX. Extradition 
LX. Piracy 


Vipit FACULTAS: 
PHILIPPUS BERNARDINI, 8S. T. D., J. U. D., Decanus. 
H. LUDOVICUS MOTRY, S. T. D., J. C. D., a Secretis. 


Vinit Rector UNIVERSITATIS: 
THOMAS J. SHAHAN, 8. T. D., J. U. LB, L. L. D. 


“VITA 


Adrian Jerome Kilker was born in Girardville, Pennsy!- 
vania, on August 21, 1901. He attended the public schools of 
that town, graduating from High School in 1916. In September 
of the same year, he entered the Seminary of Saint Charles 
Borromeo at Overbrook and eight years later was ordained to 
the priesthood by His Eminence, D. Cardinal Dougherty. 


In September, 1924, he matriculated at the Catholic Uni- 
versity of America at Washington, and registered in the School 
of Canon Law. At the end of the academic year of 1924-25, 
the degrees of Bachelor and Licentiate in Canon Law were con- 
ferred upon him. In partial fulfillment of the requirements for 
the degree of Doctor in Canon Law, he wrote and published 
this dissertation on Extreme Unction. 


[ 432 ] 





7 hey : 
=) 
ae iii 
eee 
Cees, iene | 
Ngan” 


/ iy is 


@ \) oF 
>. i 
re. =» / 

Da ri , 


/. Jon 2 : 
tg 


; ey eAse 2 te 
io 44;% ; 


Cea fs 
J 


1 





Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Libra 


11 2714 





epeiste 
aes 


2 
Sialases 


Me 


gyi 
sett 


4 


pent 


wr 
tt t 
ae 

fends 


creer 
its: 
ase. 
taf 


tsth 


ise 


Ssts Ss tate iitetetes 


=e 


itd 


past 


ef 


. 
+ 


Rete! 
an 
sat 


shots 
thebes 
hare 


SSH 


Hake z ePalarst 





paseresta 
Heat ignite : ie tees 
tied i ee : pest roeepts ttc 
preter teeth ta ntiptipatacr state pis ; seo 
\<: heres aad eoyrecateestnd sheep tetas i ve sea 
pelgarhentit tatececstebelabnits aintaenteaie tt tatetal baitiatie ct 
7 lao? tor seesey tatty 


Gal thrapeseetestht cate ot 


